
riassi 


U. 


^v^; ( 


Ronk 




1 






7(. 



/ 



/ 7 f .^ y 



SPEECHES 



X 



ADDEESSES, 



i! 



>)■ 



PELEG SPRAGUE, LL. D, 



v; 



X 



/ 



BOSTON: 
PHILLIPS, SAMPSON AND COMPANY, 

13 Winter Street. 
1858. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in ihe year 1858, 

BY PHILLIPS, SAMPSON AND COMPANY, \ 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



PBESS or TUC 

PBAIfKIilN PHINTING- r:oiTE3 

Corner of Fmnklin nnd llnwloy Streets, 
BOSTOX. 



\ 



PART I. 



SPEECHES IN CONGRESS, 



FROM THE 



YEAR 1825 TO THE YEAR 1835 



,.' ? 



I 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 

SPEECHES IN CONGRESS FROM THE YEAR 1825 TO THE YEAH 1835. 

Revolutionary Soldiers, 1 

Revolutionary Officers and their Heirs, 15 

Massachusetts Claim, 25 

Panama Mission, 49 

Surveys for Roads and Canals, ....... 55 

Drawback, . . . . . . . . . .61 

Tonnage Duty, .......... 67 

Indian Treaties, 85 

Foot's Resolution, 91, 125 

Removal of the Indians, ........ 133 

The Tariff, 183 

Colonial Trade, 203 

Northeastern Boundary, 241 

Postage, 267 

Modification of the Tariff, 279 



viii CONTEXTS. 

Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill, 

Nullification. Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions, 

Colonial Trade. W. I. Abeanqement, 

Removal of the Deposits, * . 

Public Distress, 

" " Maine Memorials, 

" " Boston Memorial, 

President's Protest, . 



. 


289 


. 


299 


. 317 


325 


. . 


331 


. 


365 




373 





379 




387 



PART II 



SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES NOT CONGRESSIONAL, BETWEEN THE 
YEARS 1825 AND 1853. 



Eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 
Washinqton's Centennial Birthday, 
Whig Celkdration at Boston, 
Speech on Abolition, v 
Harvard Centennial Celebration, 
Charge to the Grand Jury, 
Death of Mr. Webster, 



403 


421 


429 


439 


455 


... . .463 


477 



REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 



HEYOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 



House of Representatives, April 25th, 1826. 

The Bill and Amendment for the Relief of the Surviving Officers and 
Soldiers of the Revolutionary Army being under consideration in Com- 
mittee of the Whole, Mr. Webster in the Chair, 

Mr. Sprague addressed the Committee as follows : — 

Mr. Chairman : Enough, perhaps, has ah-eady been said in 
behalf of the Officers of the Eevolution. I propose to say some- 
thing for the Soldiers also. I am in favor of the amendment 
which has just been offered by the gentleman from ■Massachusetts, 
(Mr. Reed.) I believe that the soldiers of the revolution have 
a just claim upon us for a much larger amount than any that 
has been proposed to be given to them. We owe them a just 
debt, and it arises from our violations of our engagements to 
them. 

In the first place, as to their wages. 'We were bound to have 
paid them in money. This we did not do, but delivered them 
merely paper, or certificates of debt, which were not money ; they 
were not the measure of value, but their own value fluctuated, 
according to the varying opinions of the times. They were an 
article of trade in the market, and, like every other kind of mer- 
chandise, their real value was their market price ; which was 
from an eighth to a tenth of their nominal amount. The soldier, 
then, was compelled to receive an article at eight or ten times 
its real worth, so that, in fiict, he obtained, at most, but an eighth 
part of his wages. I say at most ; at times, indeed, it was far 



4 REVOLUTIOXAllY SOLDIERS. 

less. The gravest of our historians lias told us, that, at one 
time, such was the depreciation, that the pay of a captain Avould 
not have furnished the shoes in which he marched against the 
enemy, and many expended their httle all in supplying themselves 
with the humble accommodations which their stations recjuircd. 
We have thus paid to the soldiers but a small fraction of their 
wages. Our country was in the condition of an insolvent debtor, 
and made but a small dividend among our creditors. Why 
should Ave not now, when Ave have the abundant means, make 
payment of the residue ? It has been said that Ave should pay 
nothing noAv, because it has cost the United States the full nomi- 
nal amount, as the government eventually redeemed the paper. 
If it Avere so, Avhat matters that to the soldier ? If a creditor is 
offered an article at ten times its value, in discharge of his 
demand, is it of any consequence to tell him hoAv much it cost the 
debtor ? Suppose a\-c had compelled the soldier to take any other 
specific article, at such an enhanced price, and he had remon- 
strated against being thus defrauded, Avould it be any ansAver to 
say to him, " We purchased the article on credit, and our credit 
Avas so bad that it cost us much more than it Avas Avorth " ? 

Sir, that Avhich Ave did deliver, in payment, rested Avholly upon 
our credit ; if that credit Avas so Ioav that it cost us ten times its 
real value, is the Avhole loss to be throAvn upon the soldier ? Was 
it his fault that avc did not discharge our duty and sustain our 
credit ? 

But, again, it is objected, if he had retained the paper long 
enough, he might have obtained full payment. 'J.'hat is, if he had 
kept the article on hand, for a series of years, it might have risen 
in value. And Avhat if it had? Does not every one knoAv that 
the price Avliich a thing bears Avhcn it is received in pavment 
determines the amount of the debt thereby discharged, and that 
its subsequent rise or depression cannot increase or diminish it ? 
And besides this, are Ave to say to the poor soldier, Avho expended 
his last farthing in our defence, Avho could not even reach 
his home Avithout charity, and Avas compelled to part Avith his 
certificate to save himself and his children from starvation, shall 
we say to him, " You ought to have kept your paper ten long years, 
and then you might have obtained the full amount " ? It is but a 
mockery of his Avrongs to tell him — if you had done Avhat Avas 
impossible you might have been paid. 1 Avill not pause to esti- 



REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 5 

mate the amount of loss sustained by depreciation, because the 
reflection of a moment must satisfy eveiy one, that it very far 
exceeds the sums named in the bill and the amendment. 

But, sir, independently of the dejDreciation, we have never yet 
paid the full amount of the paper or certificates which we com- 
pelled, the soldier to receive. It is well known that, in the funding 
of the public debt, which took place nearly ten years after the 
close of the war, and more than ten years after much of the debt 
was contracted, the interest was not paid, but funded on interest 
of three per cent, payable at the pleasure of the Government. 
The principal was not paid ; but two-thirds was funded at an 
interest of six per cent., and interest on the other third was 
deferred for ten years. From this statement merely, the loss to 
the creditor does not appear to be great ; but in order to exhibit 
it truly, let us take an example, and compute the loss sustained by 
the holder of paper for one thousand dollars. The simple intei'est 
for ten years was six hundred dollars, which was funded at 
three per cent. Such was the pressure of the times, and the high 
rate of interest at that period, that it has been estimated that the 
amount thus funded was worth but fifty per cent. To be Avithin 
bounds, suppose the diflference to be one-third, then the six hun- 
dred dollars, thus funded, was worth but four hundred dollars, and 
the loss was two hundred dollars. 

One-third of the princij^al bore no interest for ten years. Sim- 
ple interest for that time on one-thii'd of a thousand dollars, 
amounted to two hundred dollars more, making the loss four hun- 
dred dollars. Simple interest upon this sum, for thirty years, 
exceeds seven hundred dollars, which, added to the four hundred, 
makes the loss which the holder of paper to the amount of one 
thousand dollars has suffered, by the mode and time of payment 
adopted by the Government, to exceed eleven hundred dollars — 
so that the sum which we withheld, out of that which we had 
solemnly promised in writing, with simple interest only, is now 
more than the original amount of the debt. 

Again, sir, the soldier had a right to demand money of us, and 
that too at a time when he Avas in the utmost distress for it; If 
we could not pay it, we should at least have put the debt on 
interest, payable quarterly, as a funded debt, from the beginning. 
This we could have done ; and, as Ave did not, y\^e are now bound 
to place him in as good condition as he Avould have been in, if we 



Q IlEVOLUTIOXAKY SOLDIERS. 

had porfoimcd our duty. And, if avc had paid interest quarterly^ 
couhl lie not have reahzed as much as interest compounded annu- 
ally ? Would not every honorable man pay so much to an indi- 
vidual Avhom he had thus wronged ? And if gentlemen -will make 
the computation, hy this rule, they Avill find that -svc should no\v 
pay more than three thousand dollars to every one who was an 
original creditor to the amount of one thousand ! A startling 
amount truly ; Gentlemen, however, need not be alarmed ; they 
are not asked for such a sum, nor anything like it. Only a small 
part, even of the simple interest, is now requested. But I 
thought it not amiss to suggest to them how much might be 
demanded, upon principles, which it would be difficult, in fair- 
ness, to contest. So much for the loss to our creditor. Was 
there not a corresponding gain to ourselves ? I know it has 
been said, that we paid and redeemed our paper. But, sir, it 
is matter of history, that, by the mode of payment, as it has been 
called, or rather, by the non-payment of our domestic debt, we 
saved the full sum of thirteen millions of dollars, out of the sum 
which we had expressly promised — out of the face of our bond ! 
If this sum had been paid, or funded then, we must have paid 
interest upon it until the present time, for we have never yet been 
out of debt; and our national finances are now in a better condi- 
tion, by at least fifty millions of dollars, than they >vould have 
been if we had fully paid our domestic debt. We have then, in 
our hands, fifty millions of dollars which belong to our creditors, 
and which sum we have no right to retain, if they come forward 
to claim it. And now, the most meritorious of those creditors 
ask for less than one year's interest of that sum, and yet we are 
told that we ought to reject their demand ! 

The soldiers of the revolution might present still further claims 
upon us. A\'hen wc enlisted them into our service, we entered 
into other engagements to them beside the payment of their wages. 
AVe bound ourselves to furni^h them suitable food, clothing, and 
tents, and medicines, and all the necessaries of a soldier's life. 
How was this stipulation fulfilled? Let our history — let Wash- 
ington himself, answer this question. How often, and how feel- 
ingly, do they repeat and reiterate the Avants and suffeiings of the 
army, through our violation of our engagements ! They declare 
that "actual famine" existed in llie army; that the soldiers had 
been " half the time without provisions," and had "no magazines 



REVOLUTIOXARY SOLDIERS. 7 

nor money to form them;" that they '^were bereft of every hope 
from the Commissaries ; " and, at one time, the sokliers ate every 
kind of horse food but hay, and " were perpetually on the point 
of starving." As to clothes, they declare, " that neither the 
bodies nor feet of the soldiers were protected from the frosts and 
cold of the inclement season, and after being exposed through 
the day to the rigors of^ winter, night brought no relief;" that 
they " were without clothes, and without blankets, and, at one 
time, amid the frosts of winter, nearly three thousand men were 
barefoot in camp, besides the number confined to the hospitals 
for want of shoes." And Washington describes their distress in 
these emphatic words — " Our sick, naked ! Our well, naked ! 
Our unfortunate men in captivity, naked ! " 

Such, v/e are told by the highest authorities, was the lamentable 
deficiency of the primary articles of food and clothing ; and that, 
as to all minor necessaries, they were almost unknown. They tell 
you that, in every department, the utmost distress prevailed, and 
that many, very many, sunk under their accumulated hardships — 
that, from incessant toil, from insufiicient and unwholesome food ; 
from want of vegetables, want of tents, and want of clothes, great 
sickness prevailed ; the hospitals were croM'ded, and, the medical 
department being unprovided, great mortality followed, and unu- 
sual numbers were carried from the hospitals to the grave. Do 
not sufferings like these deserve some consideration ? Will not 
the merest niggard of justice, calculating only dollars and cents, 
admit that they have a right to demand from us the value of the 
food and clothing and other necessaries which we wrongfully 
withheld ? And will not every mind, imbued Avith sentiments of 
moral right, spontaneously declare, with Washington, that com- 
pensation ought also to be made to them, for the tortures which 
we inflicted by our neglect and violation of our duty ? The amount 
I will not attempt to estimate. Let gentlemen recur to our revo- 
lutionary struggle, and consult their own hearts and their own 
judgments, and then say what is due to the soldier, who, feeble 
and sinking for want of food and sustenance, marched, during the 
day, th]-ough snow and ice on naked feet, exposed unclad to the 
Avinter's cold, Avith no resting-place at night but the earth, and no 
covering but the skies ; passing through sufferings Avliich human 
nature could not sustain unbroken ; and falling a prey to pesti- 
lence, more deadly and far more terrific than the SAvord of the 



8 REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 

enemy. Cheerfully did he face the cannon's mouth, and dare a 
soldier's death on the field of honor ; but what rewards, in your 
power to bestow, would have purchased his consent to meet all 
the loathsome forms of disease — to breathe the hospitals' nauseous 
contagions, or the corruption of a prison ship, and linger through 
protracted tortures, unheeded and unknown, toward an inglorious 
death ! Let him, who has felt the withering hand of disease, say 
what atonement we should make for causing horrors like these. 

I have thus, sir, endeavored to state the grounds upon which I 
contend that injustice has been done to the soldiers of the revolu- 
tion. In the first place, making payment of their wages in depre- 
ciated paper. Secondly, withholding a part, even of the nominal 
amount, aaIucIi we had promised ; and thirdly, other bleaches of 
contract on our part, causing peculiar privations and sufferings to 
them. 

And now I would ask, sir, who are the men Avhom we have thus 
grievously wronged ? Are they mere hirelings to Avhom we 
should be content to weigh out justice by the grain and scruple, 
or are they our greatest earthly benefictors ? They Avere actuated 
by higher and puier motives than any soldiers that ever assembled, 
and exhibited a spectacle of unyielding fortitude, and self-denying 
magnanimity, imequalled in the annals of mankind. Others, 
under a momentary enthusiasm, or in the hurrying fever of battle, 
have fought as desperately. Others, when far from succor and 
from their country, have endured and persevered for individual 
self-preservation. But where, in all history, is an example of a 
soldiery, with no power to control them, who, in a single day, 
perhaps, could have reached their homes in safety, voluntarily 
continuing to endure such protracted miseries, from no motive 
but inward principle and a sense of duty ? They were imbued 
with a loftier and more expanded spirit of patriotism and philan- 
thropy, and achieved more for the happiness of their country, and 
of mankind, than any army that ever existed. And Avhere is 
there an example of moral sublimity equal to their last act of self- 
devotion, after ])cace and independence had been conquered ? 
That army who had dared the power, and humbled the pride, 
of Britain, and ■\vrestcd a nation from her grasp ; that army, 
with swords in their hands, need not have siicd and begged for 
justice. They couhl have righted their own wrongs, and meeted 
out their own rewards. The country was prostrate before them ; 



REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 9 

and, if they liad raised tlieir arms, and proclaimed themselves 
sovereign, where was the power that could have resisted their 
sway ? They were not unconscious of their strength, nor did they 
want incitements to use it. 

The author of the celebrated Newburg letters told them. Your 
country disdains your cries, and tramples upon your distresses. 
He conjured them, in the most eloquent and energetic language, 
to exert the power which' they held, and never to lay down then* 
arms until ample justice had been obtained. He warned them, if 
once disarmed and dispersed, your voice will sink ; your remon- 
strances will be unheard ; you will grow old in poverty, and wade 
through the vile mire of dependency. What was their answer, 
when thus urged and thus tempted ? With one voice, they 
spurned the dark suggestions, voluntarily surrendered their arms, 
and submitted themselves unconditionally to the civil power. It 
was then, that their illustrious commander said, in the words read 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday, — "Had this day 
been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfec- 
tion, which human nature is capable of attaining." They quietly 
dispersed and departed for their homes, in every part of your wide 
domain, unrewarded, pennyless, carrying with them nothing but 
the proud consciousness of the purity and dignity of their conduct, 
and a firm reliance upon their country's honor, and their coi;utry's 
faith. And what return has been made to them ? Have they not 
found your high-blown honor a painted bubble, and your plighted 
faith a broken reed ? Have not those dark predictions of your 
ingratitude, which you then indignantly repelled, as slanders foul 
and false, at which you Avere ready to exclaim, " Is thy servant a 
dog, that he should do this thing ? " have they not been too much 
realized ? Have not the petitions of the soldiers of the revolution 
been disregarded ? Have they not grown old in poverty ? Do 
they not now owe the miserable remnant of their lives to charity ? 
Sir, if we change not our conduct towards them, it must crimson 
with shame the front of history. 

I will here notice some objections which have been urged against 
the bill. The gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Alston,) and 
the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Mitchell,) have insisted, that 
there are others who have equal claims with those who composed 
the army of the revolution ; such as served in civil offices, or 
furnished articles of necessity to the government. In addition to 



10 REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 

what I have ah-cady said, it ■would not he difficult to show, that 
there are many points of clear and marked discrimination hetAveen 
the cases. But I Avill not consume the valuable time of this 
Committee, by running parallels, or making comparisons which 
would be useless ; for, if it be, as the gentlemen contend, it can- 
not affect the argument. I have endeavored to show, and, in my 
humble judgment, have shown, that we owe to the soldiers of the 
revolution a just debt. The gentlemen say, that we owe others 
also. What, then, is the inference ? They say, that we should 
pay neither. I say, that we should pay both. AVe should be 
honest at all times, and toward all men. The principles which I 
advocate, are those of good faith and eternal justice, and it is no 
ansAver to tell me, that they are applicable to other cases beside 
those before us. I shrink not from following out these princij)les. 
I would extend them to all cases to which they can be legitimately 
applied. But then, it is objected, that those other creditors can- 
not now make out their claim, and we cannot extend them relief. 
And, if we cannot do all that we ought, shall we therefore do 
nothing ? If some of those whom we have wronged, have been 
placed by time and death beyond the reach of reparation, shall we 
therefore spurn from us those long-suffering creditors who are now 
suing for justice at our hand ? This may be policy ; it may be 
expediency ; it is not right. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Alston,) is alarmed 
at the expense, and warns us to count the cost of the measure 
proposed. Are we, then, to pay our debts only when it can be 
done at a cheap rate ? Are we to preserve the national honor and 
the national faith, to exercise justice and gratitude only when 
they will cost nothing ? Sir, the able exposition of the state of 
our finances, made by the Committee of Ways and Means at the 
present session, shows that the Treasury can meet the drafts now 
proposed upon it, without interfering with any objects of national 
imi)ortance. But, were it otherwise, in order to discharge these 
most sacred obligations, I would retrench and economize. I 
would do what an honest man should to pay his private debts ; 
" rise up early, and sit up late, and eat the bread of carefulness." 
I would yield to no allurements, but pare down our expenditures 
to the point of absolute necessity. I would bar all Oregon estab- 
lishments, stop short on our roads, canals, and railways, and even 
pause in our system of fortifications for national defence ; for the 



REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. H 

confidence and affection of the people, founded upon our justice, 
is a safer bulwark than would be a wall of brass encircling our 
whole dominions. 

It is said by the gentleman from Xorth Carolina, that the States 
individually have done much. Have they dischaiged our obliga- 
tions ? If we have cast our benefactors upon their charity, and 
they have relieved a part of their sufferings, does it absolve 
vis from our duty ? Is it not rather a stinging reproach, which 
should stimulate us to make instant reparation for our past 
omissions ? 

There is no danger from the precedent to be established ; for 
precedents can apply only to cases that are similar. And can 
claims like these ever again arise ? Can time go back ? Can this 
nation revert to a state of colonial vassalage ? Can we return to 
the wants and the weakness of infancy, and, writhing under opspres- 
sion, be driven to the desperate struggle for existence ? Can the 
scenes of the revolution be acted over again, and your soldiers, 
unclad, unfed, and amid indescribable horrors, again bear you ou 
their swords, through darkness and blood, to independence ; and 
then be sent aw^ay unrewarded, to pine in neglect and misery 
for nearly half a century ? Can these things ever be again ? 
And suppose that, in the course of human evsnts, our country 
should be so reduced, that we should have nothing to pledge but 
our honor, and should be engaged in conflict with a gigantic 
power, in which life and liberty should be at stake, should we 
then regret a precedent like this, inspiring confidence in our faith, 
and giving vigor to our soldiers to redeem us from impending 
destruction ? 

We have heard much about pensions, and have been told by 
the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Alston,) that the pen- 
sion law of 1818 was so ruinous, that we were compelled to 
repeal it in two years. And the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. 
McCov,) told us, on a former occasion, that our pension system 
was more extensive than that of any other country ; that the 
present laAvs went too far in favor of the soldiers of the revolu- 
tion, and he would repeal them. This word, iiension, is held up 
to us as a name of terror. There has been an odium attached to 
it, which has been, in some degree, extended to the persons v.ho 
are pensioners, and thus, I apprehend, a shade of prejudice has 
been cast over the soldiers themselves. I am never disposed to 



12 REVOLUTIOXARY SOIJ)IERS. 

dispute about words, but they ought not to be so used as to misrep- 
resent things. This term, pension, as >ve all know, is borrowed 
from England, Avhere it is justly hateful ; for, to use the words of 
her great moralist, the giant of her literature, it is there " gen- 
erally understood to mean the pay given to a State hireling, for 
treason to his country." Is a terra of infiimy like this to be 
transported hither, and applied to the scanty and hard-earned 
rewards bestowed on the most self-devoted of jxatriots ? Those 
who would alarm us with the idea, that Ave are following the 
example of Great Britain, should remember that pensions there 
are gratuities, often drawn from the poor and humble, and gen- 
erally bestowed on the powerful, to swell their luxury, and bribe 
their support to the ruling poAvers. But Avhat we call pensions 
here, are bestowed upon the poor, and decrepid, and miserable, 
to give them merely the necessaries of life. Why have Ave thus 
applied the Avord pension ? Is it not because Ave Avere imwilling 
to giA-e to our acts their true name, the tardy and stinted payment 
of a just debt, but chose, rather, out of vanity, or, as a flattering 
unction, to call them gratuities, that Ave might appear to be gen- 
erous, Avhen Ave Avere hardly just ? I care not for names, but I 
Avould not have gentlemen who have christened their OAvn off- 
spring in their oavu Avay, noAv (piarrcl Avith, and discard it, for the 
name it bears. 

It has been said by the gentleman from A'irginin, (Mr. McCoy,) 
and the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Mitchell,) that Ave have 
already n»ade provision for the poor and the necessitous, and that 
we ought to go no further. Sir, the soldiers of the revolution 
have a claim of right upon us, and I Avould do equal and ample 
justice to all, and not mete it out Avith a stinted and partial hand. 
I Avould not make the payment of our debts to depend upon the 
poverty of our creditors. No, sir, I Avould not say to the heroes 
Avho fought our battles, and, in the dark hour of our adversity, 
Avrought out our political salvation, and to Avhom wc delivered 
only tattered rags, and called them, in mockery, payment for their 
services ; men, Avhose disinterested achievements are not tran- 
scended in all the annals of chivalry, and Avho, for us, confronted 
horrors not surpassed in all the histories of all the martyrs — to 
these men of honor most cherished, and sentiments most exalted ; 
our fathers, the authors of our being, I would not now say, 
(Jome before us in the garb of mendicants — bow your proud 



REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. 13 

spirits in the dust — tear open the Avounds of the heart, M'hich 
you have concealed from every eye, and expose your nakedness 
to a cold, unfeeling world, and put all upon record, as a perpetual 
memorial of your country's ingratitude, and then, we will bestow 
a pittance in charity ! You talk of erecting statues, and marble 
memorials of the Father of his country. It is well. But, could 
his spirit now be heard within these walls, would it not tell you, 
that to answer his fervent prayers, and verify his confident pre- 
dictions of your gratitude to his companions in arms, would be a 
sweeter incense, a more grateful homage to his memory, than the 
most splendid mausoleum ? You gave hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to Lafayette. It was well ; and the whole country 
resounded, amen. But is not the citizen soldier, who fought by 
his side, who devoted every thing to your service, and has been 
deprived of his promised reward, equally entitled, I will not say 
to your liberality, but to your justice ? 

Sir, the present provisions for the soldiers of the revolution, is 
not sufficient. Even the act of 1818 was less comprehensive 
than it ought to have been. It should have embraced all, with- 
out any discrimination, except of services. But that act, partly 
by subsequent laws, and partly by illiberal rules of construction, 
has been narrowed far within its original scope. I am constrained 
to say, that, in the practical execution of these laws, the whole 
beneficent spirit of our institutions seems to have been reversed. 
Instead of presuming every man to be upright and true, until the 
contrary appears, every applicant seems to be presupposed to be 
false and perjured. Instead of bestowing these hard-earned 
rewards with alacrity, they have been either refused, or yielded 
with reluctance ; and to send away the war-worn veteran, bowed 
down with the infirmities of age, empty from your door, seems to 
have been deemed an act of merit. So rigid has been the con- 
struction and application of the existing law, that cases most 
strictly within its provisions, of meritorious service and hopeless 
poverty, have been excluded from its benefits. Yet gentlemen 
tell us, that this law, so administered, is too liberal ; that it goes 
too fin-, and they would repeal it. They would take back 
even the little which they have given ! And is this possible ? 
Look abroad upon this wide extended land, upon its wealth, its 
happiness, its hopes, and then turn to the aged soldier who gave 
you all, and see him descend in neglect and poverty to the tomb ! 



14 IlEVOLUTIOXAllY SOLDIRRS. 

The time is short. A few years, and these remnants of a former 
age Avill no longer be seen. Then we shall indulge unavailing 
regrets for our present apathy ; for, how can the ingenuous mind 
look upon the grave of an injured benefactor ? How poignant 
the reflection, that the time for reparation and atonement has gone 
forever! In Avhat bitterness of soul shall we look back upon the 
infatuation which shall have cast aside an o])portunity which 
never can return, to give peace to our conscience ! We shall then 
endeavor to stifle our convictions, by empty honors to their bones. 
We shall raise high the monument, and trumpet loud their deeds, 
but it will be all in vain. It cannot warm the hearts which shall 
have sunk cold and comfortless to the earth. This is no illusion. 
How often do Ave see, in our public gazettes, a pompous display 
of honors to the memory of some veteran patriot, who was suf- 
fered to linger out his latter days in unregarded penury ! 

" IIow proud we can press to the funeral array 
Of him wliom we shunned in liis sickness and sorrow ! 
And bailiiFs may seize his last blanket to-day, 
"Whose pall shall be borne up by heroes to-morrow ! " 

We are profuse in our expressions of gratitude to the soldiers 
of the revolution. We can speak long and loud in their praise, 
but, when asked to bestow something substantial upon them, we 
hesitate and palter. To them we owe everything, even the soil 
which Ave tread, and the air of freedom Avhich avc breathe. Let 
us not turn them houseless from habit, itions Avhich thev have 
erected, and refuse them even a pittance from the exuberant fruits 
of their own labors. 



REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS AND 
THEIR HEIRS. 



REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS AND THEIR 
HEIRS. 



In 1827, a Bill was before the House of Representatives, for the Relief 
of the Surviving Officers of the Revolution. The opposition was vehement, 
and it was extremely doubtful whether the measure could be carried in 
any form. To insure its defeat, its enemies attempted to overload it, and 
to this end moved an Amendment embracing the heirs of deceased offi- 
cers. It was known that the House would not pass any Bill so extensive ; 
hence the opponents of all relief, earnestly insisted upon the equal right 
of the heirs, and that they should be included in the Bill. The friends 
of the measure were compelled to oppose this amendment, and, upon that 
question, Mr. Sprague made the following remarks. Some of the mem- 
bers of the House were not prepared to hear a discussion of first principles, 
and the original right to property, or to distinguish between the legal 
right of heirs under a system of positive legislation, and the original right 
of the first producer founded on natural equity as well as common consent. 
Mr. Sprague, too, was a new member, and probably the youngest man in 
the House. When he sat down, he was followed by a gentleman of much 
distinction, who, although in favor of the Bill, declared that he felt him- 
self bound to admit that the argument which they had just heard, and all 
arguments to show that the claim of the heirs was not, in all respects, 
equal to that of the officer himself, were unsatisfactory. This admission, 
from such a source, seemed to be almost conclusive, at least in the minds 
of opponents, and yet the argument will be found, upon the closest scru- 
tiny, to be sound and unanswerable. 



REYOLUTIONAHY OFFICERS AND THEIR 

HEIRS. 



House of Representatives, January 13th, 1827. 

Tub House having under consideration the Bill for the Relief of the 
Surviving Officers of the Revolutionary Army, and the question being on 
the Amendment moved yesterday by Mr. Wickliffe, whirh went to 
include the heirs and representatives of deceased officers, Mr. Sprague 
said : — 

That he had been compelled to attend to his duties npon a 
Committee, during the greater part of the time that this subject 
had been under discussion. He could not, therefore, enter into 
the debate upon the general subject of the merits and claims of 
the soldiers of the revolution. Nor was it necessary that he 
should ; for, if the records of our history, and the facts which had 
been elicited by the labors of the several Committees, to which 
the subject had been, session after session, referred, and the invin- 
cible arguments which had been iirged by the advocates of the 
bill, and especially by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
Webster,) yesterday, had not made an impression on the House, it 
would be presumption, indeed, in him to attempt it. He had 
risen to make a few brief remarks upon the amendment now 
before the House, but was constrained first to advert to a closing 
observation of the gentleman from Kentucky, who had just 
resumed his seat. It appears that that gentleman has discovered, 
that the disbursements, under this bill, are to be made in the 
Eastern States ; and he has taken the trouble to examine the 



20 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS AND THEIR HEIRS. 

names on tlie list of yeas and nays of yesterday, for the purpose of 
counting them off by territorial lines. The inference which must 
have followed his statement, if he had not been courteous enough 
to disavow such intention, must have been, that he designed to 
impute interested motives to the States which he had designated. 
But did it escape the gentleman's discernment, that his territorial 
line had two sides to it, and that, when he counted off the States 
in the east, which had voted in the negative on the question of 
recommitment, he had thereby shown us, that those in the west 
voted in the affirmative, and had opened the way for an inference, 
that the latter had thus voted to destroy the bill, because the 
disbursements were not to be made among themselves ? Mr. 
Sprague said he disclaimed, as cheerfully and sincerely as did the 
gentleman from Kentucky, any intention to impute interested 
motives. Indeed, it had never occurred to him, to inquire 
whether the votes for and against the bill, had come from the one 
section of the country or the other. Bat, if it were true, as the 
gentleman had informed the House, that the officers and soldiers 
of the revolution are citizens of the east ; and if it be also true, 
that the gentlemen from the Avcst are opposed to granting any 
relief, it may afford a new illustration of the truth, which has 
often been exemplified, that men bear with great composure and 
equanimity the misfortunes of others ; and that we can more 
easily close our hearts and our hands to the injuries and distresses 
which are distant and remote, than to those immediately around 
and amongst us. He had not supposed that this was a local or 
sectional question, but had considered it truly national — affecting 
the national honor and the national faith. The claim of the 
soldiers of the revolution is an equal appeal to all , as citizens of 
that common country which they have redeemed, and as equal 
participators in the blessed and abundant fruits of their labors. 

The motion now before the House, is to embrace the heirs of 
deceased officers. He was as deeply impressed Avith our obliga- 
tions to those heirs, as the gentleman from Kentucky could be ; 
and he trusted, that few were more desirous than himself, of 
discharging their claims. But he apprehended that it was impos- 
sible to do so, and reward the survivors also. All those who had 
supported the amendment, were, he believed, \itterly opposed to 
making any provision for those who fought the battles of the 
revolution ; and it must be seen that the adoption of the amend- 



REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS AND THEIR HEIRS. 21 

nient would probably be fatal to the bill. We cannot do ample 
and complete justice to all, but we can, and we ought, to dispense 
it in some measure to those who are the most meritorious, and to 
whom we are under the highest and strongest obligations. The 
line of distinction between the successive classes of merit, is indeed 
narrow, but we must draw it somewhere, and^that, too, short of our 
wishes. As we cannot meet the claims of the survivors and the 
heirs of the deceased also, we must make our election between 
them. Which shall we prefer ? It had been strenuously and 
most confidently insisted, by the mover of the amendment, and 
by the gentlemen from Indiana and Kentucky, that no difference 
whatever can possibly be shewn between our obligations to those 
two descriptions of persons ; and, if the argument be sound, we 
may as well provide for the heirs of the deceased, to the exclusion 
of the survivors, as to relieve the latter and omit the former. 

He thought that he could perceive some difference in those 
obligations ; he did not undertake to say how great it was, nor 
did he know that he should be able to make it visible to others. 
He admitted that, when property had descended and vested in 
the heir, his legal right was as perfect as was that of the ancestor 
when alive. But that is not the case before us. This is not 
property — it has never vested in any heir. Whatever may be the 
claims of the soldiers, there are no laws to enforce them ; and the 
application is made to us to create a law to give them legal form 
and substance, and converting them into property. The right of 
the soldier is a moral right, and our obligations to him rest on 
original principles of justice. The proposition embraces equally 
all heirs, whether lineal or collateral, immediate or remote. Some 
deceased officer may have left no other relative than a twentieth 
cousin, of whom he never heard, and with whom -sve never had 
any connexion whatever, and it is insisted that we are under 
as high moral obligations, upon primary principles of justice, to 
bestow rewards on him as upon the officer himself, to whom we 
made our promises, and who hazarded his life and poured out his 
blood in our defence. 

Vpon first principles, the highest right to property arises from 
personal labor. He Avho has obtained the fruits of the earth by 
the sweat of his own brow, has a better right to enjoy them 
than any one has to become his successor to them after 
his death. The laws of the civilized world acknowledge this 



oo REVOLUTIOXAKY OFFICERS AND THEIR HEIRS. 

prei;minence of riglit in the ancestor. Upon this principle alone, 
rest all their provisions for testamentary dispositions of property, 
bv -svhich the ancestor may divert it from his heirs at pleasure. 
The very laws of descent evidence this distinction, for, being to 
a certain extent arbitrary, they vary in different countries, and 
even in different parts of the same country. On one side of a 
stream, perhaps, property shall pass to a single descendant only, 
and, on the other, be equally distributed among all of equal 
degree ; or, the individual who is to inherit, is ascertained by 
different modes of calculating the degrees of relationship, pro- 
ducing various results. But, although there exists this diversity, 
as to the persons who shall inherit, there is none as to the pre- 
eminent right of possession and enjoyment in the original acquirer. 
The laws of descent may be, in some respects, changed, according 
to the policy or circumstances of the country ; but it would every- 
where shock the moral sense of the community, to prevent a 
man's enjoying what he had himself obtained by his own personal 
sufferings. 

Let the gentleman from Kentucky, as an illustration, take the 
case of a man who has, alone, penetrated the Avilderness, and 
felled the forest, and erected the habitation of man, wberc, before, 
were only the dens of Avild beasts. "Will he say that a law ^A hicli 
shall jnevent such a one from reaping the fields which he had 
sul)dued and sown, and from being sheltered by the house which 
he had bulk with his own hands, and leave him in age, to beg- 
gary and want, is no greater outrage upon justice and moral right, 
than a law Avhich shall merely divert the course of descent or 
prevent his acquisitions from falling on a distant relative? 

As the gentlemen who have advocated the amendment, have so 
strongly insisted that there cannot be even a shade of diiference 
between our obligations to rcMurd the surviving officers, and the 
heirs of those who are now dead, he was desirous of fortifying 
his position by examples of laws founded on such distinction. 
"With tbis view he wouhl icniark, that tlu^ viglit in question is in 
the nature of what the lawyers call a chose in action ; a claim 
which may be pursued, consummated and converted into visible 
property by some legal act. ]>ut the time was, when the maxim 
prevailed " (/clio •jursimulh moritur cum ])ersuna." And at this 
moment, in many of the States, there are classes of personal actions 
which a man niiglit pursue to judgnicut, in Ills lifetime, but a\ hlch 
die when he dies, and never vest in ids lieir or representatives ; and 



REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS AND THEIR HEIRS. 23 

this especially applies to those founded on personal suffering, 
whether mental or physical. 

If there really be no shade of difference, how does it happen 
that a distinction has always been made by the reports of our 
committees, from the year 1810, to the present time? How does 
it happen, too, that those interested have themselves always made 
and acted upon such a distinction ? For, although the survivors 
have made frequent and reiterated applications to Congress, the 
heirs of the deceased have never yet even presented themselves 
as claimants. This alone was sufficient to justify him in the views 
which he had taken. 

What he had attempted to shew was, that our duty to the heirs, 
was not identical with our obligations to the survivors ; and that, 
if we must elect between them, the latter are to be preferred to 
the former. He was as desirous of extending relief to other 
persons not embraced in the bill, as the advocates of the amend- 
ment could be. But he was constrained to take it as it was, 
because he was admonished, by past experience, of the danger of 
attempting to extend it. The bill was, at the last session, literally 
broken down by the accumulated amendments which were pressed 
upon it. There is a gradation of claim from those who fought 
during the whole war, down to those who shouldered a musket 
for a single day only. As we cannot comprehend all, we must 
prefer the higher grades of merit. These, as they succeed each 
other, were in some degree blended. A particular case might 
perhaps be found where a man, who served but six months, fought 
more and severer battles than another who served three years ; 
but, as a class of persons, those who were in the army the longest 
term of time, were the most deserving. We cannot legislate for 
each individual case, but must prescribe general rules. 

The gentleman from Indiana had advocated the doctrine, that, if 
we cannot do every thing, we should do nothing. If we cannot 
remove every evil that exists, we should not attempt a remedy 
for any. 

(Mr. Test explained.) 

Mr. Sprague proceeded. He had understood the gentleman to 
say, that, if he could not do complete justice to all, he would do 
nothing. Such was not his own view of duty. He would 
redress wrongs, and dispense right to the utmost of his ablility ; 
and whatever of injustice might remain, should, on his part, not 
be voluntary, but inevitable. 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 



During the war of 1812, between the United States and Great 
Britain, the State of Massachusetts expended large sums of money for 
necessary self-defence. After the close of the war, she made a claim on 
the General Government for reimbursement of these expenses. The 
claim was resisted, principally on political grounds. The subject, having 
been referred by the President to Congress, came up for discussion, in 
the House of llepresentatives, at the first session, after Mr. Sprague 
became a member. On that occasion, he delivered the following speech. 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 



House of Representatives, April 7th, 1826. 

The Bill "allowing Compensation to the State of Massachusetts for 
Militia Services, performed during the last War," being under considera- 
tion, in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Buchanan in the chair, Mr. 
Sprague addressed the Committee as follows : 

Mr. Chairman : I am in favor of the bill ; and I am induced 
to offer my reasons for being so ; because I cannot entirely coin- 
cide in opinion with either of the gentlemen from Massachusetts, 
(Mr. Davis and Mr. D wight,) who have addressed you ; and be- 
cause the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Houston) has been 
pleased to say that no one who was in the minority of Massachu- 
setts during the late war can support the bill, or receive money 
under it without a violation of consistency — without, indeed, an 
abandonment of principle. Sir, the State which I have the honor 
in part to represent, and all her representatives upon this floor, 
were in that minority. She will I'eceive a portion of the money 
provided for by the bill, and I am unwilling, by silence, to admit 
that imputations can rest upon that character for political consist- 
ency, which we have so hardly earned, and so long maintained. 

It is first asked, why should the claim of Massachusetts be 
allowed ? I answer, because it is just in itself, and because sim- 
ilar claims have been allowed to other States. 

It is just in itself. The several States have conceded to the 
General Government the power of peace and war, and the reve- 
nues by which war is to be prosecuted and aggression repelled ; 



30 MASSACHUSETTS CLADI. 

and it is the duty of the General Government to protect each State 
against invasion. This duty is not left to inference, but is im- 
posed, in express terms, in the fourth section of the fourth article 
of the constitution. This high obligation, thus assumed by the 
fundamental law, is brought into most vigorous exercise when the 
United States declare M'ar ; for then an enemy is created without 
the consent of the State ; the time and circumstances of the dec- 
laration are selected by the General Government ; and, most assur- 
edlv, it ought to defend the citizens from the attacks which it has 
thus deliberately challenged. If it do not, but leaves a State to 
exhaust its own resources in repelling the enemy, the United 
States are boiuid to repay the sums which shall have been thus 
expended. 

This proposition is so clear that it hardly admits of argument 
or illustration. It rests npon those eternal principles of justice 
and good faith by wliich every judicial tribunal proceeds in en- 
forcing engagements between man and man, — principles, which 
are fundamental ia the juri^-prudence of every enbghtcncd coun- 
try ; M-hich the United States have recognized and enforced ; and 
in obedience to Avhich Congress have acted in granting claims ever 
since the organization of the Government. 

This very subject of militia services has presented itself, and 
the United States have paid large sums to several States, for ex- 
penses incurred in defending themselves, during the late war, with- 
out any previous request or assent on the part of the General Gov- 
ernment. Such were the claims of ^laryland and New York. 
This principle has not only been acted npon in particular cases, 
but established as a general rule. In a letter fiom Islv. Calhoun, 
Secretary of War, to the Third Auditor, written on the fourteenth 
of February, 1818, in reference to the chiinis of the State of Mary- 
land, he says : " You will ;i(biut all the expenditures by the State 
that are of the usual character in such cases, and properly vouched, 
where the militia have been called out on actual or well-founded 
fear of invasion." And, in a letter of thirtieth of March^ 1818, 
the same ofHcer, in reference to the claims of New York, says : 
" In the settlement of similar accounts, it has been established by 
this Department as a principle, that the United States are liable 
for all the disbursements made % the State on account of militia 
called out by authority of the XTnited States ; provided such dis- 
bursements were for the usual military supplies, and such as are 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 31 

authorized by law for the militia. The same principle applies 
where the militia have been called out by State authority, and 
afterwards recognized by the President, or where they have been 
called out on a sudden invasion, or well-founded fear of inva- 
sion." 

The bill before us is founded upon these principles and these pre- 
cedents. It proposes to pay to Massachusetts the sum which she 
necessarily expended in protecting herself from invasion, during a 
war declared by the United States. It is to extend to her the same 
measure of justice which has been meted out to the other mem- 
bers of the Confederacy, and which has been withheld from her, 
and her only. Such being the character of the bill, I cannot 
doubt that every gentleman who hears me would wish to give it 
his support, and repay to Massachusetts the sums which she has 
paid in discharging the obligations of the General Government, 
unless there be some insuperable objection, involving a violation 
of principle. 

What, then, are the objections which have been urged against 
it ? The speech of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Houston) 
rests wholly upon certain doctrines and conduct of Massachusetts 
during the war. His objection, reduced to distinct form, is, that 
you cannot pass tliis bill without giving your sanction to those 
doctrines and that conduct. This, indeed, comprises all that has 
been urged, here or elsewhere, which is entitled to be considered 
as an objection. Those doctrines were : First, that to the State 
Executive belongs the right to judge of the existence of the exi- 
gencies upon which the militia are to be called forth into the serv- 
ice of the United States ; and, secondly, that, when called forth, 
the militia cannot be lawfully commanded by any officer of the 
United States, except by the President in person. These doctrines 
were unquestionably erroneous. I thought so then — I think so 
still — I have never had a doubt of it. I have resisted them from 
the first moment of their promulgation ; and far be it from me 
now to say or do, or assent to any thing which would establish 
them as true. The claim of Massachusetts is not, for a moment, 
to be put in competition with a sound construction of the Consti- 
tution ; it is but as the dust in the balance, in the comparison. 

By passing the bill, you undoubtedly approve of the militia 
services for which it makes jmyment. But you do not thereby 
sanction the opinions and conduct which have been adverted to 



32 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

unless they "were so connected -with the services that you cannot 
countenance the one -without approving the other. Were they so 
connected ? At first view, it seems difficult to perceive how 
services, actually performed, should be considered as growing out 
of a refusal to render service. But, without relying upon this, I 
ask your attention to the transactions of the period when these 
expenses were incurred. Let us see what was done, and not 
merely what was said. 

The act of tenth of April, 1812, authorized a detachment from 
the militia of one hundred thousand men, of which each State was 
to furnish its quota ; and the President was authorized to call 
them into actual service, in all the exigencies provided for by the 
Constitution. In the same month of April, 1812, the Secretary 
of War requested the Governors of the several States to hold their 
respective quotas of said detachment in readiness ; and, on the 
twenty-second of June following, four days after the declaration 
of war. General Dearborn requested the Governor of Massachu- 
setts to call into actual service forty-one companies as a part of the 
Massachusetts quota of said detachment, under the act of April, 
1812. This requisition was sanctioned by the President, and 
enforced by a letter from the Secretary of War to the Governor 
of Massachusetts, written on the twenty-first of July, 1812. The 
Executive of Massachusetts then consulted the Judges of the 
Supreme Court of that State, and thereupon advanced those erro- 
neous doctrines respecting the constitutional power over the mili- 
tia, which have been so much and so justly censured ; and Gov- 
ernor Strong then refused to comply Mith the requisition which had 
been made. What was the extent of that refusal ? The most 
obvious ansM'er is, that it was coextensive with the request, which 
was confined, in express terms, to a part of the detachment author- 
ized by the law of 1812, and for six months only. But gentle- 
men may, perhaps, contend that, a part having been called for and 
withheld, the refusal, if unretracted, is to be considered as operat- 
ing so long as the detachment and the law of 1812 existed. This 
is its utmost latitude. It surely could have no effect when the 
subject matter, upon which it was to act, was gone. When the 
law ceases to exist, disobedience of it is necessarily at an end. 

Now, sir, the law of 1812 expired, by its own limitation, on 
the tenth of April, 1814, and all the expenses for which remune- 
ration is asked, excepting a small fraction, a hundredth part, per- 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 33 

haps accrued after that period. If, then, the requisition, made 
under the act of 1812, had been fully complied with — nay, sir, if 
the whole detachment, created by that law, had been in actual 
service during the whole terra of its existence — it would not have 
precluded the necessity of the services rendered in the summer 
and autumn of 181-1, when the enemy was waging war with his 
utmost vigor upon our sea-coast. The provision for defence, by 
the law of 1812, was contemplated to extend only to April, 1814, 
when the law and detachment expired together. So flir, then, 
there was no connection whatever between those erroneous opin- 
ions, or refusal, and the militia services subsequently performed. 

In April, 1814, commenced a new era. The only act of 
Congress, bearing upon this subject, then remaining in forcce, 
was the law of 28tli February, 1795. By the first section of 
that act, it is provided, that, in case of invasion, or imminent 
danger of invasion, "it shall be lawful for the President of 
the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the 
State or States, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene 
of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and 
to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of 
the militia as he shall think proper." I cannot agree in the 
opinion, respecting this law, which has just been expressed by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Dwight,) but will 
endeavor to present my own views of it. 

It is to be remembered that, by the Constitution, the President 
has no power to call forth the militia, in any event whatever. 
He is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the militia when in actual 
service. But to Congress, and Congress alone, belongs the power 
to provide for calling them forth. The law, then, might as well 
have vested his authority in any other tribunal, or individual, as 
in the President. Suppose that it had declared that the Supreme 
Court of the United States should judge of the existence and 
extent of the constitutional exigencies, upon which the militia are 
to be required, and, upon such judgment, should issue their 
mandate to a militia officer ; M'ould it be contended that that 
Court could have constituted an inferior tribunal to form that 
judgment in their stead, and to issue that mandate ? Under this 
law, the President was only an agent, with defined and delegated 
powers. And if the principle, that delegated power cannot be 
again delegated, is ever to be applied, it must be to a case like 
3 



34 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

this ; -Nvhere it was to be exerted upon future contingencies, and a 
judgment to be formed by the agent upon knoAvledge to be 
acquued. It involved the exercise of a most important and deli- 
cate discretion. It was strictly fiduciary. The President then, 
could not impart this power to others. lie could not parcel out 
the exercise of his discretion, and the forming of his judgment, 
amonf a number of inferior officers, and authorize each to judge, 
and to call forth the militia at pleasure. If he could, then the 
persons so authorized might delegate this power to their inferiors, 
and these again to others, and so on, M'ithout limitation, until the 
whole militia of the United States might be at the command of 
the meanest subaltern in the ai-my. 

Will it be said that I am encroaching upon the powers of the 
General Government over the militia ? I am not. I hold that 
the power of Congress to provide for calling forth the militia, is 
a complete power ; they may exercise it at pleasure. But no 
officer can call for the militia in any other manner than that which 
has been provided by law ; and, if he attempt to do so, he 
encroaches upon the powers of Congress, and his call is utterly 
nugatory. Will it be said that General Dearborn was only the 
medium, a mere conduit, through wliich the President acted, and 
that the requisition M'as the order of the President, issued upon 
his own judgment, and not dependent upon any discretion in 
General Dearborn ? Sh', all the documents before us, and the 
whole history of the proceedings of the United States' officers, in 
Massachusetts, show that it was otherwise. The nature of the 
authority intended to be conferred upon that officer, is clearly 
shown by the letter from the Secretary of War to the Governor 
of Massachusetts, dated twelfth of June, 1812. It is in these 
■words : 

** Sir : I am directed by the President to request your Excel- 
lency to order into the service of the United States, on the 
requisition of Major-General Dearborn, such iHjrt of the quota 
of the militia of Massachusetts, detached conformably to the 
act of 10th April, 1812, an he maij deem ncca^sanj for the 
defence of the sea-coast." 

This is no present order for the militia, but wholly prospective, 
and makes the calling for them to depend entirely upon the 
discretion of the officer, and not upon the judgment of the Pres- 
ident. It was written before the war existed, while we Mere at 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 35 

peace with all the world. It does not, indeed, directly appear, 
that the President attempted to confer authority on General 
Dearborn, under the law of 1795 ; although, perhaps, it may be 
gathered from the tenor of the documents, that it was contem- 
plated that he should exercise the same general discretionary 
power under this law, as under that of 1812. But as such a 
power could not bs delegated. General Deai'born could possess no 
authority to call forth the militia. 

Another difficulty has presented itself. The gentleman from 
Tennessee has told us that no officer of the militia is to be com- 
manded by an inferior officer of the army of. the United States. 
So says Mr. Monroe, in his letter to a committee of the Senate; 
so say the rules and articles of war, and every other authority 
upon the subject. I should like, then, to be infonned how the 
Commander-in-Chief of the militia of a State is bound to obey 
the orders or commands of a Major-General of the army of the 
United States, issued at the will and pleasure of svich officer ? I 
put it to the gentleman to answer me. Will he say that such 
Commander-in-Chief, with seventy thousand bayonets at his 
command, and thirteen INIajor-Generals under him, is not superior 
in grade to a General in the army ? No one will pretend it. 
Will he say that the requisition upon the Governor was not to be 
an order to him as a militia officer ? Then it was a mere nullity. 
The only mode provided by Congress, was by an order to an 
officer of the militia. And a request for troops, so far as it relates 
to its legal efficacy, might as well be addressed to the priest of a 
parish, or a proctor in a college, as to the Governor of a State, if 
it be not an order to him as a militia officer. 

Sir, the President never issued his order for the militia of 
Massachusetts, under the act of 1795 ; and no constitutional 
provision was made for her defence by the General Government, 
after April, 1814. She was compelled to defend herself. After 
the peace in Europe, the enemy was enabled to bring an immense 
force upon her extended coast, and she was left to exhaust her 
own resources, in repelling the enemy, and protecting the terri- 
tory of the United States from invasion. These expenditures are 
wholly disconnected from all censurable acts and erroneous opin- 
ions, and we are solemnly bound to make remuneration for them, 
as we have done for all similar services in other States. 

The gentleman from Tennessee has spoken at large of the 



36 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

conduct of IMassacliusetts during the war, but, after all his labo- 
rious researches, he has found but one instance in which, even by 
his own construction, there was any want of promptitude in 
repelling the enemy ; and that was the case of the little town of 
Brewster. He spoke, somewhat sneeringly, of the contribution 
levied upon that place ; and told us, rather significantly, that, if 
he had been there, he would have met the enemy at the point of 
the bayonet. Yes, sir, if he had lived in a little village of thirty 
or forty houses, upon a sandy cape, where three British seventy- 
fours could, within point-blank shot, have poured in their whole 
batteries, and demolished it at once, he would have stood upon 
the naked beach, and met those seventy-fours, at the point of the 
bayonet ! It would have been a most gallant action ! The gen- 
tleman spoke of that which he did not understand. Had he 
known the hardy Cape Codmen as well as I do, he would have 
known, that there is not upon this earth, a set of men that meet 
an enemy more fearlessly than they do. Such were the men who 
achieved your victories upon the Lakes, and upon the Ocean, and 
suffered in the prisons of Dartmoor ; and I envy not the man 
who can speak of their misfortunes with a sneer. 

I am not an apologist for the conduct of Massachusetts during 
the war. There was much of it which I never did, and never 
can, approve. But I would not be indiscriminate in our censure. 

The gentleman has asserted, that Massachusetts invariably 
thwarted the General Government, and threw every possible 
obstacle in its way, and that the United States derived no aid 
whatever from ^lassachusetts ! No aid from Massachusetts ? 
"Who swept the commerce of the enemy, and paid the customs into 
your Treasury ? AVho composed your army on the Niagara fron- 
tier ? AVho manned your ships ? Sir, you spread not a sail, you 
fired not a gun upon the Lakes or the Ocean, without the aid of 
the sons of jNIassachusetts ; and scarcely a battle was fought 
upon the waters, in which her blood did not mingle with the 
waves. I will say, what I believe, that there is no State in the 
Union wliosc citizens contributed more to the glory and success of 
our arms, during the late war, than did the sons of Massachusetts, 

I woidd not be drawn aside from the subject of the militia, 
which is now more immediately before us, and of which, for the 
present, T am content to speak. I have before remarked, that 
General Dearborn had no power to make any authoritative rccpii- 



MASSACHUSETTS CLADI. 37 

sitloiis for the militia after the year 1812. But that brave and 
faithful officer was anxious that the territory and property within 
his district should be defended, and, for that purpose, he, at dif- 
ferent times, requested that troops should be called forth ; and, 
notwithstanding what has been said by the gentleman from Ten- 
nessee, every request made upon the Governor of Massachusetts by 
General Dearborn, or any other officer of the United States, for 
the purpose of defence, was substantially complied with after 
1812. I do not mean that they were answered in form, and the 
troops always placed under the officers of the United States, but 
that the measures desired were actually adopted. There was 
concert and arrangement between the officers of the General and 
State Governments in their exertions to defend the soil. 

As the gentleman has undertaken to deny this, and has asserted 
that Massachusetts threw every possible obstacle in the way of 
the General Government, and rendered no aid whatever, I hope I 
shall here be indulged in presenting a statement of facts, which 
appear in the documents. 

The first requisition made by General Dearborn after 1812, 
was on the eighth of July, 1814, and was for eleven hundred 
men to be called into service, with suitable officers. On the 
twelfth of the same July, the Governor of Massachusetts ordered 
his Adjutant General to comply with that request, which was 
done, and the troops placed under the command of an officer 
of the United States. 

The next request was on the twelfth of August of the same 
year, when he desired that small detachments should be turned 
out, as occasion should require, for the defence of the sea-coast. 
This measure was adopted. 

On the fifth of September, 1814, General Dearborn requested 
about four thousand seven hundred men to be called out, and on 
the sixth of the same September, he suggested the propriety of 
having all the militia within twenty or thirty miles of the sea-coast 
on the alert, and ready to march at a moment's warning. On the 
same sixth of September, the Governor called into service more 
than four thousand seven hu.ndred troops, and ordered the whole 
militia of the State to be in constant readiness for an instant 
march. 

On the seventeenth of the same September, General Dearborn 
made a requisition for twelve hundred men, which was complied 



38 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

Avith, and the troops placed under his command, in tlie forts of 
tlie United States. 

On the twentieth of September, 1814, pursuant to previous 
arrangement, eleven hundred men were ordered by the Executive 
of ^lassachusetts to be placed under the command of an officer of 
the United States, but difficulties arising from the militia, and not 
from the Government, prevented this arrangement being carried 
into effi^ct 

On the twenty-second of the same September, three hundred 
men were placed under the command of Colonel Walbach, of the 
United States' Army, for the defence of Portsmouth, in Xew 
Hampshire. 

As early as August, 1812, at the request of General Dearborn, 
three companies were placed under the command of General Boyd, 
a United States' officer at Eastport. 

In the spring and summer of 1814, Commodore Bainbridge, 
then commander of the United States' navy-yard, at Charlestown, 
made several requests for preparations and aid from the militia, 
for the defence of the frigate Constitution and the navy-yard, and 
for the erection of forts, all of which weve with such alacrity 
complied with, as to caiise expressions of gratification, not only 
from the Commodore, but fiom the Secretary of the Navy 
himself. 

On the first of July, 1814, the Governor of Massachusetts 
gave orders to ]Mnjor-General King, that, whenever application 
should be made by an ruthorized officer of the United States, 
commanding any of the forts of the United States, for aid to 
defend them against the approach of an enemy, he should comj)ly 
with the request, and furnish the number of men desired. 

Is thig " invariably thwarting the General Government?" Is 
this "rendering them no old uluttevcr? " Surely, the gentleman 
from Tennessee must have been very unfortunate in his researches, 
and the authorities upon which he relied. 

The same gentleman told tis, and he repeated the assertion, 
that no more than three companies of militia were ever placed by 
Massachusetts under officers of the United States ; and that the 
doctrine that the militia could not be lawfully commanded by 
such officers, was adhered to throughout the whole war. The 
correctness of this assertion may be judged of by the facts Avliich 
I have already stated : The eleven hundred men placed under 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 39 

a United States' officer, on tlie twelfth of July, 1814 ; the 
twelve himdred men put under Major-General Dearborn, pursu- 
ant to his request of seventeenth September ; the three hundred 
men placed under Colonel Walbach; besides the three companies 
placed under General Boyd, in 1812. Sir, that doctrine, respecting 
the command of the militia, was actually relinquished and aban- 
doned, both by word and deed, by the very Governor who 
advanced it; and that, too, during the war, before and at the time 
the militia were in service. The position taken was, that the 
militia cannot be lawfully commanded by an officer of the United 
States. In every instance in which the Governor placed troops 
under the command of an officer of the United States, he aban- 
doned that position : for he thereby declared such command to be 
laiiful, otherwise he must confess himself to be guilty of subject- 
ing his own soldiers to an illegal and usurped command. He 
abandoned this doctrine, too, when, on the twentieth of Septem- 
ber, orders were issued for eleven hundred men to be placed 
under an officer of the army, pursuant to previous arrangement. 
In a letter written by Governor Strong to his Adjutant General, 
on the twelfth of June, 1814, he says, he sees no difficulty in 
placing militia under the command of General Gushing, of the 
United States' army. More conclusive still, is the letter written 
to Major-General King, on the first of July, 1814, which not 
only admits that the militia may be lawfully commanded by 
United States' officers, but expressly concedes that such officers 
are to have precedence, and the command of militia officers of 
equal grade. This Avas unequivocally yielding all that the Gen- 
eral Government ever claimed on this point, as appears by a 
letter from Mr. Monroe, as Secretary of War, to Governor 
Strong, written on the seventeenth of September, 1814, and a let- 
ter from the same officer to Mr. Giles, Chairman of a Committee 
of the Senate, bearing date the eleventh of February, 1815. 
These acts and these services, so flir from being allied to those 
erroneous and dangerous opinions, are opposed to and inconsistent 
with them. Do they not merit our entire approbation? Is there 
any clanger to be apprehended ? Can any one here imagine that 
the notion respecting constitutional power, which w^as strangled 
almost in its birth, and has been buried for years, can be noAv dug 
up, and resuscitated, and acquire strength enough to break down 
the Constitution ? 



40 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

I have tlius fur confined myself to the transactions of the war, 
and the ch-cumstanccs attendant upon the services for which 
compensation is cLiimed. Since that time, the Government of 
Massachusetts have unequivocally renounced those erroneous 
doctrines, M'hlch are now urged as so formidable an objection to 
this bill. Here I wish not to be misunderstood, I do not 
contend that this rcniuiciation gives any new merits to the claim. 
It must make its way by its own original strength. But the 
disavowal removes an obstruction presented to the progress of 
the claim. It is objected, that you will jeopardize the sound 
construction of the Constitution. But those erroneous expositions 
having been expressly renounced by the State which advanced 
them, if you allow the claim after and upon such renunciation, 
you thereby sanction the disavowal, and repudiate those doctrines. 
The objection is thus effectually obviated. 

But further. Are not the reports of your committees upon 
this subject, and the messages of the late President of the United 
States, upon record, where they will always show that this bill 
rests upon grounds that arc in direct hostility to those erroneous 
doctrines ; and is it possible that any man will hereafter believe 
or contend that the proceedings of this House give countenance 
to those constructions ? Nay, sir, look at the bill itself: it carries 
a denial of them on its face. It provides that the militia shall be 
paid — not because the Governor of Massachusetts thought their 
services to be necessary, but to the extent that the Executive 
Department of the United States shall believe them to have been 
necessary ; thus withholding from the State the right to judge of 
the exigency, and expressly retaining it in the United States. 

It was said by Mr. Monroe, in a letter to Governor Strong, 
during the War, that, if the Governor had the right to determine 
under what circumstances the militia Avere to be called out, a 
State might burthen the United States with expense, at pleasure, 
without their consent. This bill says that the State could not, at 
pleasure, burden the United States with such expenses, and thus 
declares that the Governor had not the right to judge of tlie 
emergencies. The bill further provides, that where the militia 
were specifically withheld from the command of an officer of the 
United States, applying for the same, payment shall not be made; 
thus, in the most unequivocal terms, denying, and putting down 
the notion, that the militia are not to be commanded by United 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 41 

States' officers. There is no possible distortion by "svhicli this 
construction can be rendered even doubtful. 

The principles of this bill are most safe for the national Treas- 
ury ; for, however great may have been the expenditures of Mas- 
sachusetts, no more can be paid to her than it must have cost the 
United States to have provided for her defence. On the other 
hand, if her measures were more economical than those of the 
United States, you derive the whole benefit of that economy ; and, 
in point of fact, if the forty-one companies, called for by General 
Dearborn, had been in service during the tM'o years that the law 
of 1812 continued in force, it would have cost the United States 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and probably more than the 
whole existing claim. The citizens of Massachusetts and Maine 
may have suffered by that refusal, their defence not being ade- 
quately provided for ; but it will be an immense benefit to the 
national Treasury, even when the whole demand of Massachusetts, 
with interest, shall be allowed. 

I am constrained, sir, to acknowledge that I came to this inquiry 
with prepossessions against the claim ; but careful investigation 
has convinced .me of its justice ; and I cannot doubt that every 
gentleman who will give to the subject a thorough exam- 
ination will come to the same result. This conviction is strength- 
ened by the fact, that every committee to whom it has been 
referred — and there have been not less than three — have reported 
in favor of the claim, and the late President of the United States, 
who, of all men in the National Government, had the best means 
of understanding it, and certainly had no reason to be unduly 
biased in its favor, acknowledged its justice, and, by repeated 
messages to Congress, strongly recommended its payment. I 
hope, then, that it will not be thought indecorous in me to request 
gentlemen to come to the consideration of this subject unbiased, 
and to discard whatever of prejudice the excitement of past times 
may have produced ; for prejudice silently and secretly winds its 
subtile and tenuous web around the mind, until the rays of truth 
are utterly excluded. 

The gentleman from Tennessee has introduced many things 
wholly foreign from the subject before us. He has even conjured 
up the ghost of the Hartford Convention to frighten us on this 
occasion. Sir, it has no terrors for me. I feared it not when in 
full life and vigor. I resisted it then, and have never spoken of 



42 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

it but as deserving decided condemnation. But Avliat has the 
Hartford Convention, or our opinions of it, to do uith this bill ? 
The services for which it provides were performed in the summer 
and autumn of 1814, and that Convention had no existence until 
the winter following. The debt had accrued, the obligation upon 
the United States to pay it had attached, before that assemblage 
had being. IIow, then, are they connected ? Is it to be pre- 
sented as a release and discharge in full of preexisting debts and 
obligations ? 

The gentleman dwelt also upon the resolution of the Senate of 
Massachusetts, relative to the victory of the Hornet over the Pea- 
cock. I need not declare that I never could have assented to that 
resolution. I might, with some pride, say that a venerated parent, 
as a member of that body, opposed it at the time, and, ten years 
afterwards, was the mover of the resolution which expunged it 
from the record. But, again, I say, what connection has that 
transaction with the business before us ? Are we to arraign the 
Senate of Massachusetts for declining to pass a vote of thanks ? 
Is a great, respectable State to be punished and degraded because 
one branch of its Legislature withheld a gratuito.us compliment 
from one of your officers ? But it is said that that Senate ex- 
pressed, in strong terms, their disapprobation of the war, of which 
that gentleman and myself were ardent supporters. And had 
they not a right to express their opinions ? Sir, public opinion is 
the vivifying principle which gives life and vigor to all your 
republican institutions ; and it is the essential right of the people, 
individually and collectively, to express their views of public meas- 
ures. We see it daily exemplified. In some States, hardly a 
jury can be empannelled which does not arraign some public act ; 
and resolutions upon national subjects and national measures are 
passed by all descriptions of persons, and in all kinds of assemblies. 
And are we to deny this right to the Legislature of an independ- 
ent State ? We have been told, in a recent debate, that, if an 
enemy should again take this Capital, and should cut off the head 
of this Confederacy, he would immediately find twenty-four other 
heads arising from the body of this Hydra, in the form of State 
Legislatures ; that the State Legislatures are to be the salvation 
of this country in time of war ; and are they not to have the poor 
privilege of expressing their opinions of such war ? As to the 
correctness of those opinions, the Senators of Massachusetts were 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 43 

amenable to tlielr own constituents, and to them only. And 
" who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? — to his own 
master he standeth or falleth." To the People of Massachusetts 
M^ere they responsible, and to the People of ^Massachusetts have 
they answered it. 

The gentleman told us that he knew nothing of party during 
the war. I believe him, sir ; and it explains the cause of some of 
the errors into which he has fallen. If he had known the true 
character of parties, he never could have taken the unqualified 
rejDresentation of heated partisans for exact and sober truth, upon 
which to rest an argument addressed to this House. I may say, 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Everett,) that I 
have, in early life, seen something of parties. I have seen those 
whose native feelings of pure and ardent benevolence would have 
bound them together by the strongest ties of affection, who 
would have poured out their blood for each other, but, Avhen the 
fiend of party had taken possession of their bosoms, meet only with 
the looks and feelings of demons ! I have seen the flame of party 
which had been lighted up by. the firebrands of the furies ! Can 
we take a picture drawn by a political enthusiast, as a true deline- 
ation of the character and principles of all his adversaries ? Who 
is there amongst us, that, stinging under real or supposed inju- 
ries, in the exasperation of party contentions, may not have 
depicted his opponents in darker colors than sober reflection could 
afterwards approve ? I need not follow the gentleman through 
the mad projects of individual maniacs, advanced one day and 
withdrawn the next, like that of Mr. Low, to which he alluded. 
I will not follow through the hair-brained petitions and memorials 
of political fanatics. I will not dive into the mass of newspaper 
feculence of that day, to bring up here the bitter fruits of party 
virulence. 

Sir, these things have no relation to the subject before us. 
And when the gentleman shall have inquired and deliberated, I 
will appeal to him, — is it generous, is it just, to travel away from 
the merits of the question, and arouse the embittered recollections 
of past contentions, which may produce a spurious influence against 
the bill ? 

The argument of the gentleman, stripped of all disguise, is this, 
— that we should reject this claim, not for its own character, but 
as a punishment upon Massachusetts for her demerits in other 



44 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

respects ; and the same has been urged elsewhere. Is such a 
principle to be tolerated ? Is this House to erect itself into a tri- 
bunal to sit in judgment upon the several States? Are we to 
keep an account current with them, charging each with every 
error of opinion, and every deviation from our standard of recti- 
tude, and balance the account by withholding justice ? Was such 
a principle ever before advanced or thought of? Adopt it, and 
you reduce the States to le;5s than mere local corporations ! Adopt 
it, and you may then ring the knell of State rights. Let me bring 
it home to each one present. Let me say to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, to you, ]\Ir. Chairman, or to the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia, your State has held unpalatable opinions ; your conduct 
has not always been squared by our rules of projjriety ; and for 
this you shall be punished ; you shall be degraded ; your just 
claims shall be rejected ; and you shall be shut out from the 
common benefits of the Union ! What would be the answer ? 
Should I not be told that you would sound the tocsin until it 
should be heard from one end of the Union to the other ? And I 
can tell you that the note of remonstrance will ring as loud and as 
long from the mountains and forests of ]SIaine, as from the soil of 
any State — Middle, Southern, or Western. 

All the errors of Massachusetts have been portrayed in sombre 
colors, while her merits have been passed by in silence. Even 
her early sufferings, without which, some of those who are now 
ready to reproach her, would never have breathed the air, or 
lisped the accents of freedom, seem to be almost forgotten. It is 
not for me to delineate her chai-acter ; it belongs to other hands. 
But since all who were citizens of Massachusetts, during the late 
war, have been visited by indiscriminate denunciations, I trust I 
may be indulged in saying a few words for that part Mhich now 
constitutes my own State. 

Maine, sir, under all her sufferings, has been, at all times, the 
firm and undeviating supporter of the cause of our country. 
Although a great portion of her citizens were dependent upon 
commerce for their very subsistence, yet, during embargo, 
restrictions, and war, she beheld her commerce annihilated ; her 
wharves and her shores desolate ; her ships, her produce, and 
her storehouses rotting together ; her merchants ruined ; her 
mechanics and sailors reduced from competence to beggary ; and 
misery and want spread through her land; and all without 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 45 

faltering for a moment in her fearless and un"0"avering support of 
the National Government. 

Daring the war — bordering for more than three hundred miles 
upon the territories of the enemy, and with nearly the same 
extent of maritime frontier, indented with innumerable bays and 
inlets, studded with towns and villages, with millions of shipping 
in her harbors, when the enemy, after the pacification in Europe, 
was enabled to bring his immense forces upon her shores, and 
was "waging a barbarous Avarfare, ravaging and making incursions 
into her territory — when dismay M'ent before him, and desolation 
followed in his train, she was compelled to meet and stay the 
enemy alone and unassisted. You sent not a soldier to her 
relief; nay, her own hardy sons, mIio had volunteered into your 
service, were not permitted to remain to defend their own homes 
and their families, but marched away to the frontiers of New 
York, to fight the battles of Chippewa and Niagara ! Yes, sir, 
the battles of Chippewa and Niagara. Who composed the Ninth 
Regiment, which has just been mentioned by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. D wight,) and which there fought success- 
fully against twice their numbers of British veterans, whilst one 
half their own number had fallen on the field ? That regiment 
was unequalled, except by the Twenty-first. Yes, the Twenty- 
first, in which fought those whom Ripley first led from the 
stubborn soil of ]Maine ; which, when the fate of the battle of 
Niagara stood suspended, or rather, when it was almost decided 
against you, turned the tide of war, by a movement so desperate, 
that the commanding general had not even thought of proposing 
it to any. But Ripley knew his men, and, by liis order, imder 
the gallant Miller, they ascended an eminence commanded by all 
the enemy's artillery, and, in the full blaze of their cannon, 
continued to advance until they cut down the artillerists at their 
pieces, and drove the infantry from the position. The British 
commander, stung to madness by this unexpected defeat, brought, 
in three successive charges, fresh and redoubled forces to retake 
the ground. The conflict was man to man, and bayonet to 
bayonet; the combatants were commingled, the enemy was 
beaten. It was a contest which, for obstinate and desperate valor, 
was unequalled, upon land, during the whole war ; and the 
Twenty-first Regiment stands unrivalled. And what return has 
Maine received ? Neglect then, and contumely now. At the 



46 MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 

close of the war, almost all the officers and soldiers from Maine 
and ^Massachusetts were coldly turned out of your service. Those 
■who had been "first in the fight " found no room "at the feast." 
"While clouds lowered around us, and the tempest raged, you 
called upon them to protect you from its fury ; but, Avhen peace 
had returned, and all was fair, and calm, and safe, their stern and 
warlike virtues could be disjiensed with. Others found more 
favor in your eyes ; perhaps of more supple form and gayer 
plumage. I could proceed further in this course of remark, but 
I am unwilling to do so. It is grating to my feelings to be 
compelled to speak of my own State ; and I should not have 
done so, had not indiscriminate censure been poured forth upon a 
people whose fidelity and patriotism have been always conspicu- 
ous, in spite of privation and danger, and neglect, and injury. 
Maine has done her duty to the utmost ; but she has not, like 
some others, trumpeted her merits. She seeks no rewards. She 
asks no favors. She demands only equal and impartial justice. 
And I am confident that justice will not be withheld. Its exer- 
cise is enjoined upon you by every consideration of moral right 
and political expediency. Whilst despots are laboring and 
combining to prop up their iron thrones, it is our high duty to 
strengthen and perpetuate our own institutions, as the best service 
we can render to ourselves and to mankind. To this end, we must, 
on all occasions, seek to cement our Union, to bind together all the 
parts in the bonds of mutual interest, mutual confidence, and mutual 
affection. One deliberate act of palpable injustice to a State, may 
chill the warm current of patriotism, and engender distrust and 
resentment. To ado^it the principles which have been advanced 
in this debate, — to punish, stigmatize, and degrade a State, for 
errors of opinion, must be felt, not only as an injury, but as an 
insult. The wounded spirit will rankle from generation to 
generation. If you compel the fathers to " eat sour grapes," the 
" children's teeth will be set on edge." Reject, then, this novel, 
this alarming doctrine. Plant not a root of bitterness, which 
may spring up, and rise, and expand, until it covers and darkens 
all this fair land. 

Let me not be misunderstood. In nothing that I have said, do 
I mean any thing Hke a threat. I despise gasconading every- 
where, and especially on this fioor. I know the strong attach- 
ment which Maine and Massachusetts cherish towards the 



MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM. 



47 



National Government, and that they will bear and forbear as lono- 
as endurance can be a virtue. I mean only to present the 
disastrous consequences which must flow from the dano-erous 
principles which have been advanced, whenever thcv shall be 
adopted, and wherever practically applied. 



PANAMA MISSION. 



PANAMA MISSION. 



House of Representatives, 20th April, 1826. 

The following resolution being under consideration, in Committee of 
the Whole, upon the state of the Union, viz : 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of the House, it is expedient to appropriate the 
funds necessary to enable the President of the United States to send Ministers to 
the Congress of Panama : 

Mr. McLane, of Delaware, moved an amendment, declaring the opin- 
ion of the House as to the authority to be given to those Ministers, and 
that it ought to be limited and restricted, as specified in the amendment. 

Mr. Sprague spoke as follows : 

The gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. INIcLane,) who had just 
taken his seat, had told us that he wishes these restrictions 
imposed upon our Ministers, because he would enter into no 
measures to oppose the European Powers ; that he would consult 
exclusively the interests of the United States. Sir, (said Mr. S.,) 
I fully assent to the general course of policy set forth in these 
amendments, that we should form no alliances and be involved in 
no entanglements. I agree that the interests of our own country 
are paramount to all other considerations, and that they should 
not be sacrificed by any sympathy for others. We should take 
care of ourselves, and it may require all our efforts to preserve 
our own institutions. But I am opposed to these amendments. 
The gentleman would restrict the Executive, in order to promote 
our own interests. How do we now know what the true interests 



52 PANAMA MISSION. 

of this country may require to be done at this Congress of 
Panama? Is this House now in possession of all the information 
that may bear upon this subject? Do we know the present 
condition of all our diplomatic correspondence, and all that has 
been done by all the Powers in Europe, and all the Governments 
in South America ? And if we know all that has been done or 
said, do we know every thing that will be done, or can occur, 
during the existence of that Congress, or even before Ave shall 
reassemble here next winter ? And can we now certainly define, 
beforehand, what the true interests of this country may or may 
not require to be done at that Congress ? May not the vital inter- 
ests, may not the existence, of our own country, be jeopardized, by 
other movements of the crowned heads in Europe, beside the 
direct invasion of our soil ? Sir, in the commencement of our 
Revolution, what caused Connecticut, and New Hampshire, and 
all the other colonies, to rise in arms when Massachusetts came in 
conflict with the mother country ? They were not invaded. It 
was for their own self-preservation. It was because Great Britain 
had asserted the right to bind all the colonies, in all cases what- 
soever, and had attempted to carry it into actual effect by force. 
And suppose it should be learned, during the approaching 
summer, that the Holy Alliance had decreed that they would put 
down all free Governments, in all cases whatsoever, and were 
about to carry it into effect by landing hundreds of thousands of 
bayonets upon the shores of Mexico — immediately upon our 
borders ? Should we fold our arms, and look on Avith indiffer- 
ence, and wait only for the poor privilege of being the last victim ? 
Can we now say, that there cannot be any possible combination of 
circumstances, which may render it proper to make a joint 
declaration, or concert other measures for the defence of the 
South American States, and ourselves from European aggression ? 
If we cannot, why should we tie down the Executive so that he 
may not act, under all circumstances, as the good of this country 
may require ? Why not leave to him the free exercise of his 
appropriate duties, as they are left by the Constitution, and to the 
discharge of Avhich, this House is so ill adapted ? AVhy take 
upon ourselves the guardianship of the Executive ? Oar Consti- 
tution presupposes that every department of the Government will 
discharge the trust reposed in it, with ability and correctness, and 
why should we undertake to say to the Executive, you shall not 



PANAMA MISSION. 53 

act freely, because we presume, in anticipation, that you will not 
act correctly ? 

As to the right of this House to pass resolutions respecting 
merely the general course of our foreign policy, I shall say 
nothing. It is a very different thing from what is now attempted. 
To say merely, as a general rule, what our policy ought to be, as, 
that it should be pacific, neutral, still leaves to the Executive the 
full exercise of his discretion as to the circumstances and emergen- 
cies to which that policy does not apply, or under which it should 
be departed from ; but to say what shall or shall not be done in 
a particular measure, is to deprive him of all discretion over the 
subject. In such case, no exceptions can be admitted, as there 
may be to a general rule. I know it has been strenuously con- 
tended, that the resolution now j^roposed, is a mere abstract 
declaration of opinion, and unconnected with the mission. The 
gentleman from Delaware, the mover of these amendments, 
protests against their being connected wnth the ai:)propriation bill 
and the mission. This is an abstract opinion, unconnected with 
any particular measure ! Sir, it is a proposition in terms of and 
concerning this particular mission. It declares that the appropri- 
ation for it is expedient, which is the same as saying that 
the appropriation bill ought to pass, subject to the proposed 
restrictions. The mission is the subject-matter of the resolution, 
and of all the amendments which have been offered. I have 
closely attended to the debate upon this subject, without any 
intention of taking part in it ; and I believe that every gentleman 
who has advocated the proposed amendments, even those who 
have most strongly protested against their being a restraint upon 
the Executive, or connected with the appropriation bill, have 
supported them on the ground that they will limit, or restrict, or 
govern, our Ministers at Panama. One set of gentlemen tell us 
that they believe the mission to be wholly pernicious, and that 
they are in favor of the amendments, because, if they cannot 
defeat it entirely, they wovild render it as feeble and as harmless 
as possible. If they cannot crush it, they would at least press it 
into the dust, and this is to be done by an abstract proposition, 
that does not restrain the Executive, or affect the mission ! 
Another set of gentlemen Avish these amendments, because they 
would have our Ministers divested of power, and go to Panama 
merely to tell the Congress there that we have nothing to say to 



54 PANAMA MISSION. 

them except to express our good wishes. Even the gentleman 
from Delaware, (Mv. McLane,) himself, told us very recently, 
that, if we did not take a vote upon the resolution and amend- 
ments, he should vote against the bill, although he had been in 
favor of it. How is this, sir, if there be no connexion between 
them ? AVill that gentleman tell us, that his vote upon any other 
bill in the whole list of the orders of the House, will be gov- 
erned by any disposition which we can make of the jiropositions 
now before us ? 

Sir, it is clear, it cannot be disguised, that the amendments 
proposed, are, in effect, a condition annexed to the appropriation, 
and go to restrain, and limit, and govern, the Executive, in the 
exercise of his legitimate constitutional powers of conducting a 
foreign mission. Of the right and propriety of our doing this, I do 
not purpose to speak. The subject has already been exhausted. 
I will only remark, that, in ^my view, it is departing from our 
proper sphere, and encioaching upon another department of the 
Government ; and that, if the present motions prevail, and the 
precedent be followed up hereafter, and become the settled 
practice, it will produce, in its effects, a greater change in the 
Constitution, than would any of the amendments which have 
been the subject of such protracted discussion during our present 
session. 



SURVEYS FOR ROADS AND CANALS. 



SURVEYS FOR ROADS AND CANALS. 



House of Representatives, February 20th, 1827. 

The Military Appropriation Bill being under consideration, and the ques- 
tion being on a motion made by Mr. Rivers to strike out the following 
item, "For defraying the expenses incidental to making examinations and 
surveys, authorized by the act of oOth of April, 1824, $30,000," 

Mr. Sprague spoke as follows : — 

He had not intended to have uttered a word upon this subject, 
and had risen only in consequence of the extraordinary and unex- 
pected course of argument adopted by the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia, (Mr. Rives.) The proposition did not involve the question 
of the Constitutional power of Congress over the subject of Inter- 
nal Improvements ; it merely proposed to grant a sum of money 
to carry into effect a standing laAv. To this the gentleman objects, 
on the ground of abuses, and zealously maintains not only that 
the trust may be, but that it has been, grossly betrayed. He 
asserts that the surveys which have been made, by order of the 
present Executive, have been for political electioneering purposes ; 
that they are upon little local objects, now, for the first time, 
suggested, and which have never been thought of, as national in 
their character. And, at the head of his list of new, unheard-of 
surveys, made for no sufficient reason, but only from sinister 
motives, by the President, he places those of the last year in 
Maine. Had the gentleman taken the trouble to inform himself 
upon the subject, had he even looked into the documents of this 
House, he would not have hazarded such an assertion. Several 



58 SURVEYS FOR ROADS ANT) CANALS. 

years since, and long before the expiration of Mr. Monroe's term 
of office, the Board of Engineers, in reporting a system of gen- 
eral defence, distinctly pointed out the opening of a water com- 
munication between the Kencbec river and the St. Lawrence, as 
an object of national importance. During the last session of 
Congress, a petition for surveys Avas presented to the House, from 
a Convention composed of gentlemen from three several counties, 
containing an aggregate population of more than one hundred and 
twenty thousand persons. This memorial was referred to a com- 
mittee, who made a report thereon, in which it is stated, that the 
object is "highly important to the nation at large, in reference 
both to its military, and commercial operations. The importance 
of this object, in this point of view, has not been now, for the 
first time, presented to the National Government. It has been 
embraced, not only in all the reports made to Congress, at differ- 
ent times, contemplating a general system of national improve- 
ments, but is also recommended in the report of the Engineers 
who examined the coasts of the United States, Avith a view to a 
general system of national defence ; " and the Committee con- 
cluded by recommending the desired survey to tlic President. 
This is not all. A Committee of the Senate, also, upon a resolu- 
tion referred to them, made a report, strongly in faAor of the 
surveys in question, and urged them upon the llworable consider- 
ation of the Secretary of War. Besides all this, both the 
Senators, and all the Representatives, from Maine, excepting one, 
or, at most, two, united in a written request, that surveys might 
be ordered. But the gentleman says, that there were some 
Senators or Representatives, adverse to the Administration, and, 
with reference to them, some purpose was to be subserved by 
sending Engineers to Maine. I know not whence the gentleman 
derived his information ; but, if it were true that there was a 
diversity of opinion, how does it happen that all united Avith one 
accord in this request ? Could they expect that opposite and 
inconsistent political effects Avould flow from it, and thus the aims 
of both be accomplished ? The gentleman says that he never 
heard such names as Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Ammounisick, 
before. I Avill inform him that the Kennebec is a river emjjtying 
into the Atlantic, and runs nearly through the centre of Maine, 
traversing a populous and fertile region ; and that its head waters 
approach near to those of the Chaudicre, a brancli of the St. Law- 



SURVEYS FOR ROADS AXD CAXALS. 59 

rence. The Kennebec is connected with our Revolutionary his- 
tory as the avenue through which the memorable expedition 
under Arnold penetrated to Quebec, and is the shortest route 
from Boston, and a great portion of New England, to the capital 
of Lower Canada. The Androscoggin is a river which empties 
into the Kennebec. The Ammounisick is a branch of the Con- 
necticut river ; and the canal route surveyed would connect the 
waters of the four last named rivers ; and thence, as the gentle- 
man from New Hampshire has just informed us, the communica- 
tion was contemplated to extend to the great lakes. I am not 
speaking of the expediency of accomplishing these works ; that 
remains to be determined ; but of the proposed plans, that it may 
be seen wdiether they are of such little, pitiful, local character, 
as has been represented. But the gentleman says. Here is a 
Brunswick Canal projected, and who ever heard of such a j)lace 
as Brunswick, in Maine ! I can inform him that that canal was 
contemplated as a link, in the cliain of communication by the 
Kennebec, and facilitating the intercourse between a portion of 
that river and the ocean. 

I can tell that gentleman, too, that Brunswick, of which he 
has now heard for the first time, contains a public College, which 
I believe has been, and trust will be, of as much utility as the 
trumpeted University of Virginia, whose name has gone abroad 
upon the wings of the wind. But the gentleman insists that 
Engineers were sent by the Executive to Maine, only for political 
purposes. vSuch an idea had never before been suggested, and he, 
(Mr. Sprague,) verily believed, had not entered into the imagina- 
tion of a single individual. He could answer, for one, that it had 
never crossed his mind, and he believed that he might safely aver 
the same for each of his colleagues. It is a discovery Avhich 
belongs exclusively to that gentleman. And by what process of 
reasoning does he arrive at his conclusions ? What proof does he 
adduce of sinister motives, and electioneering purposes ? None, 
but his own want of information ! He not only avows his igno- 
rance of the geography of the country, but declares that he never 
before heard even the names of the places, and from this he 
deduces his inferences. 

I had supposed that the course of correct logic and legitimate 
reasoning was, to begin with things known, and thence to proceed 
to deductions before unknown. But the gentleman has reversed 



60 SURVEYS FOR ROADS AND CANALS. 

the rule. His streams of knowledge flow from a fountain of igno- 
rance. He envelopes himself in Egyptian darkness, and, by his 
prolific imagination, conjures up frightful chimeras, which he 
presents to us as real substantial beings. 

But our names Kenebec and Androscoggin, seem to grate 
harshly on the gentleman's ears. He facetiously asks his friend 
over the way, if he ever heard of them, and pronounces each 
with a peculiar expression of ridicule and mockery ! It is true, 
sir, that Maine can pride herself upon no such Royal and Kingly 
appellations, either of rivers or counties, as boasted Virginia 
contains. We have no " King George ! " no " King Wilham ! " 
no " Kings and Queens ! " no " Prince Edward ! " no " Prince 
George ! " nor even a " Piincess Ann ! " But such as we have, 
we choose to retain, and would not exchange them, even for those 
more congenial to that gentleman's taste. Our names are derived 
from the Aborigines of our country, in whom freedom was per- 
sonified ; whose spirit was as lofty and unconfined as their own 
mountain winds ; who bowed to no human power, but lived free, 
or ceased to live. Such are the associations connected with those 
appellations, and such are the feelings of the peoj)le among whom 
they abound. 

Mr. Sprague said he would detain the House only to add, that 
the position which the gentleman from Virginia had taken, that 
the Treasury was now in a state of unusual embanassment, was 
not, he believed, sustained by the fact. The idea, that there was 
now a deficit, arose solely from the supposition, that the old balances 
of the annual appropriation of $10, ()()(), 000 to the sinking fund, 
were a continuing charge on the Treasury. This he was not 
prepared to admit ; and so far dilfercd from the opinion which he 
understood his friend from jSIassachusetts, (Mr. Dwight,) to have 
just expressed. But, if it were true^ that those balances still 
continued to be chargeable, — then was the Treasury now in a 
better condition than it had been at any previous time, since the 
year 1819. 



DRAWBACK. 



DRAWBACK. 



House of Representatives, December 15, 1828. 

The Bill increasing the Amount of Drawback on Sugar refined within 
the United States being under consideration, Mr. Sprague spoke as 
follows : 

He "was glad to find that the gentleman from New York, (Mr. 
Storrs,) for whose opinion he entertained a high respect, agreed 
with him in the general principles which sustained the drawback 
system. That gentleman's opposition to the bill resolved itself 
into a question of fact, not of principle. He objected that it would 
interfere with our domestic sugar. Such, Mr. Sprague said, would 
not be the case, for two reasons : First, our domestic sugar is not 
suitable for refining, and the foreign sugar alone is used for that 
purpose. 

[Mr. Storrs explained. He said that the foreign sugar was 
better adapted to the purpose of refining, from having been longer 
in the country, and better drained.] 

Mr. Sprague resumed. Whatever might be the cause, the fact 
was not denied by any one, that our domestic sugar never goes to 
the refiners ; it is not suited to their use, as the foreign sugar is, 
and therefore does not come in competition. In the second place, 
we do not produce domestic sugar enough for our home consump- 
tion. We must, for some time certainly, continue to import 
largely from abroad. It is said that the quantity made in the 
United States is fast increasing, but it is to be recollected that our 



64 DRAWBACK. 

population and consumption is fast Increasing also, and we cer- 
tainly cannot expect to be soon supiilied from our own soil ; and, 
so long as we import for our own consumption, there certainly 
can be no competition in the foreign market between our own and 
foreign sugar. 

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. McDuffie) insists that 
allowing this drawback is giving a bounty upon the exportation 
of sugars. He says that the importer pays the duty, and that 
afterwards we pay back the amount to the refiner, as a bounty ; 
that, the article having been brought into the country, repaying 
the duties is a dead loss of so much to the Treasury. This pro- 
ceeds upon the assumption that the same quantity Avould be im- 
ported if reexportation was not permitted. If such were the fact, 
the consequence would be to depress the price of domestic sugar 
— an effect which has been so much deprecated. Having the arti- 
cle here, if we prevent its flowing off in the usual channels of 
commerce, the accumulation inevitably reduces the price. Expor- 
tation of the foreign article is, in such case, as highly beneficial to 
the domestic producer, as if the same quantity of his own found a 
market abroad. 

But this assumption is not founded iu fact, nor in the princi- 
ples of political economy. We now import for two purposes — 
domestic consumption and foreign exportation ; cut off one of 
these objects, and we can then import for the other only. To 
stop exportation will not increase the amount of our oAvn consump- 
tion, for which alone Ave can then introduce it. To withhold the 
drawback is to prohibit exportation. If the American merchant 
pays five cents the pound to our Government, when the English 
merchant pays nothing, the latter can undersell the former by 
that amount in the foreign market. The competition cannot be 
sustained. You thus destroy the business of importation and 
exportation, and the manufacture in our own country. As this is 
so much controverted, permit me to illustrate my views. Supj^ose 
a gentleman in New York should now say to us, I will send 
abroad American produce, and therewith purchase, and then bring 
into this country, a hundred thousand hogsheads of sugar annu- 
ally, in our own ships. I will then refine it, and transport the 
same to a foreign uuu'ket, thus creating a market for the fruits of 
our soil, giving encouragement to our shipping, and to all the 
multiplied branches of industry connected therewith, and employ- 



DRAWBACK. 65 

ing our seamen and our manufacturers without injury to any one, 
and all that I ask is, that you will not tax this branch of business 
— that you will not prevent my finding a market abroad. Should 
we, could we hesitate to grant such a request ? Now, sir, this is, 
in truth, what is asked of us by several instead of one, and it is 
what we propose to grant by this bill. The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. McDuffie) asks, why should not the carrying trade 
pay a part of the burthens of Government ? Sir, those concerned 
in it now pay their full proportion. Are not your hemp and iron, 
and other materials for ship building now taxed, and severely too ? 
Does not commerce, by imports, pay all the burthens of Govern- 
ment ? And do not those concerned in the carrying trade, the mer- 
chants, the ship owners, the ship builderSj the seamen, pay, as con- 
sumers, their full proportion of all these imports ? Why, then, (Mr. 
S. askedj should you think of taxing the carrying trade upon the 
ocean as a branch of business, any more than the transportation upon 
the New York canal, or upon our roads, or our great rivers ? Why 
should the employment of ships be oppressed any more than of 
canal boats and steamboats ? Mr. Sprague said, he might ask 
why should not the manuilicturers, why should not the cotton 
planters, pay a part of the burthens of Government ? The gen- 
tleman will tell us that they pay enough already ; and I answer 
that the carrying trade pays enough and more than enough now. 
The gentleman asks also, why should we not make foreigners pay 
a part of the expenses of our Government ? My answer is, 
because they will not consent, and we have no means of coercion. 
We may indeed impose the duty of five cents the pound upon this 
sugar ; but we must recollect that foreigners are not obliged to 
buy, and will not buy of us and pay this duty, when they can 
purchase of others without paying it ; they will take it directly 
from the West Indies to their own ports, and not through ours. 
Sir, w^e have tried the experiment ; we now retain one cent the 
pound duty, and of course enhance the price so much to our 
exporter ; and what has been the consequence ? The almost total 
prevention of the trade. The whole amount of drawback upon 
refined sugar, is only eleven thousand one hundred and sixty-eight 
dollars, while the duties upon imported sugar are nearly one mil- 
lion seven hundred thousand dollars. The gentleman from New 
York, (Mr. Storrs,) says the business is so small that it is hardly 
worth discussing. It is, indeed, insignificant in amount now, and 
5 



66 DRAWBACK. 

must be so as long as your laws make a discrimination against it ; 
but the object of this bill is to place our citizens upon a just equal- 
ity with their foreign rivals, and thus to enlarge their business, 
and add to the wealth and prosperity of the nation, without injury 
or inconvenience to any man. 



TONNAGE DUTY. 



TONNAGE DUTY. 



Eakly in the session of 1828-9, Mr. Sprague offered a Resolution, 
instructing the Committee of Ways and Means, to inquire into the expe- 
diency of repealing the Tonnage Duties upon ships and vessels of the 
United States, and such foreign vessels, as had a right to be put upon an 
equality with our own, which was adopted by the House. Mr. Sprague, 
subsequently, by authority of that Committee, of which he was a member, 
made a full Report, accompanied by a Bill to repeal those duties. It 
passed the House at the same session, but was not then taken up in the 
Senate. At the next session, it passed both branches, and became a law. 
The following speech was made in the first debate upon the subject in the 
House. 



TONNAGE DUTY. 



House of Representatives, February 4th, 1829. 

The Bill to repeal the Tonnage Duty upon ships and vestiels of the 
United States, and upon certain foreign vessels, being under considera- 
tion, Mr. Sprague addressed the House as follows : 

He said that, as he had originally called the attention of the 
House to this subject by resolution, and had been the organ of the 
Committee of Ways and Means in rejDorting the bill, it was, per- 
haps, his duty to make some reply to the gentleman from Georgia, 
(Mr. Gilmer,) who had just resumed his seat. The bill simply 
proposes to repeal the tonnage duties, and thereby to relieve the 
people from a burthen — a measure certainly desirable in itself, 
and which every one must readily accede to, unless strong objec- 
tions are urged, and injurious consequences pointed out. It is 
said, in the first place, by the gentleman from Georgia, that the 
tonnage duties are easily collected, as no officers are created or 
supported for the purpose. So, sir, it may be said of the tariff 
duties ; they are received by the same persons — the collectors of 
the customs. But will that gentleman, or any other, insist that 
this is a good reason for continuing those duties ? If we propose 
to take from a citizen a portion of his property, and he remon- 
strates against it as unnecessary and unequal, is it any sufficient 
ansAver for us to tell him that agents are already appointed, and 
we can take it with facility — with perfect ease to ourselves ? 
Again, it is objected that the tax is a light one. Sir, (said Mr. S.,) 
if the duty be small in amount, still, if it be unnecessary, or une- 



72 TONNAGE DUTY. 

qual, it ought to be removed. It is not the magnitude, hut the 
necessity and justice, of any tax, that determines the propriety of 
imposing or continuing it. The people will cheerfully submit to 
any burthens which ihe real wants of the Government, for legiti- 
mate purposes, demand ; and they will acquiesce in no other, 
however trifling in amount. An illustration of this is afforded in 
the tariff hnv, to which the gentleman has alluded. Is it the mag- 
nitude of the impost that has occasioned the state of excited feel- 
ing at the South against it ? No, sir, I am persuaded that their 
patriotism M'ould have paid to the uttermost farthing, without a 
murmur, if they had been convinced that it was equal and just, 
and constitutionally required for the purposes of necessary rev- 
enue ; but, because they believe it to be the reverse of all this, 
they protest against and denounce it ; and they would remonstrate 
against any and every imposition, however minute, which they 
considered as of the same character. In referring to the tariff, I 
am but following the gentleman from Georgia. I do it merely to 
illustrate my views, but without any intention to discuss that sub- 
ject, or even to express an opinion respecting it. 

I am not disposed to exaggerate or magnify. I will not say that 
this tonnage duty is, of itself, a grievous and intolerable burthen, 
but it is one of several impositions Avhich, in the aggregate, are 
grievous, and almost insupportable ; which arc now opi)ressing and 
nearly overwhelming the navigation of the country. The amount 
of this tax is about one htnidrcd thousand dollars a year. Tiiis 
is something — it is worthy of om- attention. But the evil is aggra- 
vated by the manner of collecting it, which is unequal and vexa- 
tious. The law imposes six cents the ton upon every vessel, to 
be paid annually by those enrolled and licensed for the coasting 
trade and fisheries, and upon each entry into any port of the 
United States of those sailing under a register. The license 
remains in force but for one year ; it can neither be originally 
obtained, nor renewed, except in the port to which the ship 
belongs. If, therefore, pursuing the usual course of trade, a ves- 
sel sail in the autunui from !Maine to the West Indies, and thence 
to New Orleans, and is afterwards engaged in the coasting trade 
l)etw(>en that city and l^altimore, riuladelphia, or New York, she 
must sail under a register, aiul pay six dollars upon the bundled 
tons burthen, for every entry into each port, even if it be as often 
a-s once a fortnight, or every week, or she must incur the danger. 



TONNAGE DUTY. 73 

delay, and expense, of a voyage to the extreme North, for the sole 
purpose of exchanghig her documents ; and. at the expiration of 
the year, or sooner, if she shall have visited any foreign port, the 
same hazardous, profitless, and vexatious process must be repeated. 
It operates also with great inequalitj^ upon the various descrip- 
tions of foreign trade. A ship, engaged in long voyages to dis- 
tant regions, will pay but little ; while those trading with our 
immediate neighbors, as between New Orleans and Havana, will 
find the frequent recurrence of the imposition to be of serious 
moment. Still more vexatious is it at the other extremity of the 
Union, where the proximity of the provinces of New Brunswick, 
Nova Scotia, and the Canadas, is such, that our vessels may be 
subjected to this duty not only every week, but every day. 

In the practical operation of this law, therefore, upon certain 
classes, and these least able to endure it, the burthen is far from 
being light or trifling. The injury falls, indeed, in the first in- 
stance, upon the ship owners ; but it is not confined to them. 
The gentleman from Georgia, with his usual candor and intelli- 
gence, has admitted that it extended also to the agricultural inter- 
ests, of which he is a representative ; and he might have added 
that the relief now proposed is, in its effects, for the benefit of 
every section of country, and all classes of its inhabitants. Every 
burthen upon the vehicle is a tax upon transportation, and dimin- 
ishes the facility of intercourse between the States. The South 
are interested in enabling our ships to convey, for their use, the 
articles wdiich they consume, and also to transport their great sta- 
ples to a market, as cheaply as possible. So, also, the manufi^c- 
turers of the North and Middle States must be desirous of receiv- 
ing their bread stuffs and raw materials, and of sending their fab- 
rics in return, without unnecessary obstruction or expense. Not 
only manufacturers and planters, but the farmei", mechanic, and 
artisan, nay, every man, who cither produces or consumes, buys 
or sells, any article that is transported in a ship, whether coast- 
wise or in the foreign trade, is, in some degree, benefited by 
relieving its burthens, and reducing the rate of freight. 

This is a familiar principle. To facilitate transportation is the 
object of all works of Internal Improvement, whether by the States 
or the Union. Why then should we throw obstructions, and im- 
pose tolls, upon the great highway which the beneficence of Provi- 
dence has given us along the sea-coast, when we are expending 



74 TONNAGE DUTY. 

millions to create artificial communications, by roads and canals, 
where nature has denied them ? 

The gentleman from Georgia stated that this hundred thousand 
dollars tonnage duty never reached the National Treasury. This 
is certainly erroneous. It was imposed for revenue ; is required 
by law to be paid into the Treasury ; and the Report of the Sec- 
retary every year shows that it has always been actually received. 
But the gentleman did not, I presume, mean to be understood lit- 
erally, but only that the expenditures for lighthouses, buoys, and 
harbors, upon which he earnestly insisted, exceeded the amount 
of the receipts from this source. These disbursements are made 
from the mass of the national treasure, without designatioir of any 
particular fund from which they shall be drawn. There was, in- 
deed, a law passed in 1804, imposing an additional duty of fifty 
cents the ton upon foreign ships, under the denomination of light 
money, and which is still in force^ and will remain so, unaffected 
by the passage of the present bill. 

It is insisted that the present tax ought to be continued, because 
of the amount paid for the benefit of navigation, in the erection 
and maintenance of lights, piers and harbors. This objection, at 
first view, seems entitled to consideration ; but it will be found, I 
think, upon reflection, to involve an error of principle, and a mis- 
take of fact. What is the general principle upon which it would 
rest ? Is it not this, that each branch of industry, that every 
national establishment, should directly pay for the expense of sup- 
porting, and the protection extended to it ? If this be correct, 
why were the direct taxes and internal duties repealed ? Are not 
the expenditures for the support of civil government, of the army, 
the judiciary, of almost all our institutions, intended, primarily, 
for the protection of the soil, and the person of the citizen ? Why, 
then, should we not have a direct imposition upon real estate ? 
Why not impose a capitation tax, and an excise upon every spe- 
cies of domestic manufacture, especially those peculiarly protected ? 
The answer is ready. We can derive sufficient revenue much more 
advantageously, from other sources. The public welfare is pro- 
moted by sustaining and encouraging these departments of indus- 
try. And so it may be said, emphatically said, of this. The 
national wealth, and security, and happiness, aie advanced, by pro- 
tecting and cherishing your shipping, and relieving it from direct 
taxation. You have other objects in abundance, from which you 



TONNAGE DUTY. 75 

can much better derive revenue for this and every other expend- 
iture. The true question for the financier to solve, in estabHsh- 
ing duties is, upon what objects can they be imposed most equally, 
justly, and beneficially, for the Union ? 

This objection, of the expenditures for lighthouses, beacons, 
and harbors, must be founded upon the idea that they are exclu- 
sively for the benefit of ship owners. But is not commerce, as 
distinguished from navigation, vastly more interested in them, 
inasmuch as the cargo is of greater value than the ship, and it is 
more important to preserve the lading than the vehicle in which 
it is transported ? A more enlarged and correct view of the sub- 
ject will enable us to perceive that the salutary effects of these 
establishments are not exhausted upon particular -sections of 
country, or a certain portion of its citizens, but are universally 
diffused. Let me suppose that all the guides, and beacons, and 
securities, for entering and departing from our rivers and harbors, 
were removed, and that they were as difficult of access as the 
Columbia river was represented, in the recent debate upon the 
Oregon bill, where a ship must lie off its mouth some months 
before an entrance can be effected, and nearly as long Avithin, per- 
haps, before a departure can be hazarded, would not every one, 
who participates in the comforts of civilized society, by purchasing 
for his own use, or selling to others, any article of commerce, 
suffer from such a condition of our coasting trade ? And would 
it be felt by any more severely than by those of the South ? If 
there was not a single merchant ship owned in the United States, 
still we must and should have these conveniences, aids, and ficil- 
ities, so long as we have any external commerce. It would, in 
such case, be carried on exclusively in the ships of other nations ; 
but, if great and dangerous obstructions existed to their ingress 
and egress to and from our harbors, so that the dangers, and 
delays, and expense of the voyage, were doubled, must they not 
receive, and must we not, as their employers, pay twice as much 
for freight and insurance ? Sir, if we had no ships, still, as a 
mere matter of national economy, we should erect and maintain 
these necessary facilities to internal and external commerce. But 
let us, for the sake of the argument, assume it to be a correct 
principle, that each branch of industry should be required to pay 
directly the expenses of fostering and protecting it, and also that 
commerce and navigation alone are aided and relieved by these 



76 TONNAGE DUTY. 

expenditures, wliicli have been so strongly nrged against tliem. 
Does not the objection, then, involve the error of supposing that 
they do not now pay more than the amount of those disburse- 
ments, Avhen, in truth, they pour vr.illions upon millions annually 
into your treasury ? Hardly a fraction of the national revenue is 
derived from any other source ; they are the fountains Avhich have 
supplied all your wants, given sustenance to all your great insti- 
tutions, and infused health, vigor and activity into the body pol- 
itic. If, then, Ave are to keep an account current, and charge to 
commerce and navigation the expenses of their protection and 
advancement, let us have the justice to credit to them the moneys 
which they pay. If we take so limited a view as not to regard 
the facilities extended to commerce as benefits conferred upon the 
nation, let us also confine our views to them as payers of the im- 
posts, without inquiring what proportion may eventually be reim- 
bursed by consumers. If we look not beyond the agents, but 
charge them as recipients of our bounty, we should also put to 
their credit the sums derived from them. 

The gentleman irom Georgia has insisted that there is no branch 
of industry so lightly taxed as the shipping. I confess I am at a 
loss to conceive by what process the gentleman has arrived at such 
a conclusion. Is agriculture taxed? Are manufactures taxed? 
Is there one other great national employment that is taxed at all ? 
In what sense, then, can it be said that this is taxed less severely 
than they ? Sir, those concerned in navigation pay every duty 
and impost Avhich other portions of the community bear. The 
mechanics, laborers, and sailors, employed by the ship builder and 
the ship owner, arc great consumers of articles subjected to im- 
posts, — none greater ; they pay more than five times as much in 
duties as the same number of agricultural laborers in the Southern 
climate. But, besides this, ship owners contribute a vast amount 
in duties upon tlie materials of ship building. Under the existing 
laws, a ship of three hundred tons burthen pays no less than one 
thousand one hundred and twenty-six dollars ; aiul the present 
tonnage of the United States amounts to nearly six millions. 

The amount of tonnage which we had on the thirty-first of 
December, 182G, would pay, in imposts upon its materials, by the 
present laws, five millions seven hundred sixty-two thousand four 
hundred and seventeen dollars. The gcntk'nian has remarked 
tliat the tonnage duty has remained without increase or change 



TONNAGE DUTY. 77 

since tlie year 1790. That is very true, sir, and it is a grievance 
that it has so continued. It was originally imposed merely for 
revenue, when the necessities of our country imperatively 
demanded it. Then, just emerging from the protracted and des- 
perate struggle of the revolution, we were in a state of absolute 
exhaustion, without money or credit, or revenue, and with an im- 
mense public debt ; every source of income was put in requisition ; 
not only our vessels, but real estate and domestic manufactures, 
were subjected to contribution ; since which, in the prosperity of 
the country, the latter have been relieved, the former has not. 
Nay, so far from experiencing any alleviation, the burthens of our 
ships have been aggravated nearly sixfold since the year 1790 ! 
Then a vessel of three hundred tons burthen was subjected to 
duties upon hemp, iron, duck, cordage, etc., only to the amount 
of one hundred and ninety -seven dollars and thirty-one cents. 
Now, as already stated, the same ship pays, upon those articles, 
no less than one thousand one hundred and twenty-six dollars and 
eighty cents. 

Under the law of 1790, the imposts upon the materials for 
constructing one million five hundred and thirty-four thousand 
one hundred and ninety tons of shipping, the quantity owned in 
the United States in 1826, would be one million eight thousand 
nine hundred and eighty-five dollars ; and, under the existing 
tariff, the enormous sum of five millions seven hundred and sixty- 
two thousand four hundred and nineteen dollars — an increase of 
four millions seven hundred and fifty-three thousand four hun- 
dred and thirty-two dollars, by successive acts of legislation since 
the year 1790 ! The same quantity of tonnage now contributes 
annually, in these duties, more than one million one hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars. 

Why were these additional burthens imposed ? Was it not for 
the benefit of agriculture and manufactures ? Has not the naviga- 
tion been oppressed and weighed down to aid the grower of hemp 
— the iron masters — the makers of duck and cordage ? Super- 
added to all others remains this direct tax, the tonnage duty, from 
which we now seek relief. And why should it be continued ? 
Why not as well burthen the machinery of manufactures as these 
vehicles, the machinery of commerce ? Why not, with the same 
justice and expediency, levy a duty of an hundred thousand dol- 
lars per annum upon cotton gins, which now pay, in imports upon 



^78 TONNAGE iniTY. 

materials, but a fraction of the amount to which our vessels are 
subjected. But if a law imposing such a tax were now proposed, 
should we not hear, borne upon every breeze from the South, a 
note of remonstrance, louder by fir than even that Avhich was 
raised by the tariff? Far be it from me to assent to such an im- 
position. I only present it as a parallel case, which may come 
home to the sensibilities of others. Sir, the true principle which 
should guide the statesman in matters of finance, is to derive rev- 
enue from those sources Avhich are least onerous, most equal, most 
just, and most beneficial to the community. 

It is said that this toll ought to be continued for the purpose of 
discharging the public debt ; and that, when that shall have been 
accomplished, we will have a general reduction of duties. The 
national debt is not wholly redeemable until the year 1835, and, 
if we should reduce our income tenfold as much as this bill pro- 
poses, we shall still have abundant means of paying the whole 
before that period shall arrive. Our finances are in the most pros- 
perous and enviable condition. From the last annual Report of 
the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears that we shall hereafter 
be able to apply twelve millions of dollars, annually, to the prin- 
cipal and interest of the debt. 

Now, as the stocks are not all redeemable at the pleasure of the 
Government, nor until the year 1835, the semi-annual application 
of six millions of dollars to all, excepting the three per cents, of 
the revolution, as fast as they shall become payable, will leave, 
in the year 1832, a surplus of nearly three millions, which can- 
not be applied ; and, in 1833, more than nine millions ; in 1834, 
more than six millions ; and, in 1835, above seven millions ; 
making an aggregate exceeding twenty-five millions of dollars, as 
appears by the following Statement. 

[Mr. Sprague here presented a tabular Statement.] 

The three per cents, amount to thirteen millions two hundred 
and ninety-six thousand two hundred and forty-nine dollars. The 
highcbt market price has been eighty-five per cent. To purchase 
the whole at that rate would require the sum of eleven millions 
three hundred and one thousand eight hundred and twelve dol- 
lars ; which would be paid by the above surplus of two millions 
eight hundred and eleven thousand four hundred and twelve 
dollars in 1832, and of nine millions thirty-six thousand five hun- 
dred and seventy-two dollars, in 1833 ; and leave, in the latter 



TONNAGE DUTY. 79 

year, unapplied, the sum of five hundred and forty-six thousand 
three hundred and fifty-two dollars, which, added to the surplus 
of 1834 and of 1835, will make an aggregate of no less than four- 
teen millions four hundred and forty thousand one hundred and 
six dollars, which must remain inapplicable in the years 1833, 
1834, and 1835, after the total extinction of the national debt. 
Subsequent to that period, the whole annual twelve millions of 
dollars will be liberated. 

If it should be thought in any degree doubtful whether the 
revenue will hereafter yield so much as twelve millions of dollars 
annually for the discharge of the debt, I will submit a calculation 
founded upon the amount of ten millions dollars only, the sum 
which is actually appropriated by law to the sinking fund ; and 
supposing, also, that the three per cents, are to be paid at par, 
instead of being purchased at their market value, and it will 
appear that, even then, there will be a surplus, in the year 1835, 
of two millions three hundred and fifty-one thousand one hundred 
and thirty dollars, as is fully exhibited by the following State- 
ment. 

[Mr. Sprague here presented a tabular Statement.] 
Thus, if Ave now repeal the tonnage duties, still, before the expi- 
ration of the year 1835, the present permanent appropriation to 
the sinking fund will have wholly extinguished the public debt. 
How are the ten millions of revenue, now annually devoted to 
our creditors, then to be disposed of? Remain idle in your hands 
it will not. The idea of accumulating treasure for future emer- 
gencies in a Government like ours, is vain and illusory. No 
political artist can so construct the vaults of your Treasury as to 
prevent its escape. It cannot be permitted to rest in our coffers. 
How, then, is it to be disposed of? Shall it be expended by the 
National Government ? I confess I should look with fearful fore- 
bodings to the day when millions and millions will be soliciting 
us to appropriate them according to our pleasure or caprice. 
Hitherto we have been eminently distinguished for the purity and 
uprightness with which our national finances and disbursements 
have been conducted. We have been excelled by no Govern- 
ment on earth. But may not our purity have been, in some meas- 
ure, owing to our poverty ? During the whole term of our 
national existence, we have been in debt, and public opinion has 
imperiously demanded the scrupulous application of all our means 



80 TONNAGE DUTY. 

to the discliavge of the claims of our creditors. Have Me not 
reason to apprehend that the sudden influx of great disposable 
riches may bring in its train temptations to profusion, extrava- 
gance, and profligacy? I wish not to see the time when ten or 
twelve millions of dollars shall each year be poured down, as it 
were, upon that area, to be scrambled for here by the Representa- 
tives of the people. I should tremble lest disinterestedness, 
integrity, and public virtue, should be borne down by selfishness, 
avarice, and corruption. 

Shall we adopt the proposition to distribute the surplus revenue 
among the States ? This may be less dangerous than expending 
it ourselves ; but why, I ask, should we take money from the peo- 
ple, merely for the purpose of returning it to them again ? — or, 
rather, for the purpose of restoring a part only ; for the design is 
to keep up our system of imposts, and, from the amount received, 
to deduct, first, the expenses of collection, and the losses occa- 
sioned by fraud and accident, before it reaches the treasury ; then 
the expenses of managing and disbursing it, and the defalcations 
from negligence or design, causing it to pass through the hands 
of many agents, to the palm of ev^-y one of which some portion 
will adhere, and then to return the part that will remain to the 
people from whom it was taken — not, indeed, to the same per- 
sons, nor to the same State ; that will be impossible. Whatever 
rule of apportionment may be adopted, the distribution must be 
unequal, because the payment of duties cannot be in conformity 
with such rule, but is governed wholly by consumption. Thus, 
a State, whose citizens should contribute a fifth part of the whole 
imposts, might receive only one tenth of the sum distributed. 
The scheme, in effect, is this : Collect ten millions, of which one 
State, New York, for example, shall have paid two ; subtract the 
expenses and losses, and then distribute the residue, of which the 
same State, by the ratio adopted, may be entitled to receive less 
than one-tenth, — not half the sum she contributed. lam confi- 
dent that the gentleman from Georgia, and many others,. Avill 
doubt the constitutional right in Congress to collect revenue, not 
for national objects, nor any purpose for which the Federal (jov- 
ernment was established, but merely to maintain a system of 
unequal donations to the several States. 

Sir, we have but one course to pursue, and that is to reduce 
taxation. I would *do so immediately to a much greater amount 



TONNAGE DUTY. 81 

than is proposed by the present bill. It is enjoined npon ns by 
the dictates both of duty and of policy. We have no moral right 
to burthen our constituents beyond what the legitimate objects of 
the Union demand. I would not be niggardly. I would sustain 
the great institutions of our country upon a firm and extended 
basis. I would exercise true liberality, equally removed from 
parsimony on the one hand, and profusion on the other. But I 
%vould take from the people no more than the necessities of the 
General Government may require. To that extent it is our duty 
to go,, and to such taxation they will always cheerfully submit, 
however onerous ; but, beyond that, they will not readily acqui- 
esce in any requisitions, although apparently insignificant. You 
can make no disposition of unnecessary revenue, so just and so 
beneficial to the nation, as to leave the fruits of the industry of 
the citizen in his own hands, and subject to his own control. 
Your national wealth must consist of the riches of individuals. 
Your treasury must be the pockets of the people ; let them be 
replenished by the benign influence of enlightened and paterual 
legislation, and your coffers are always full ; you have treasures 
inexhaustible. It is conceded, indeed, it cannot be denied, that 
there must be a reduction of duties. The question is, when shall 
we begin ? The gentleman from Georgia insists that they shall 
remain untouched until after the redemption of the public debt, 
and then be at once removed or diminished. But I contend that 
we should begin ziow. Sudden transitions and great revulsions in 
trade are to be avoided. It is desirable that changes in the polit- 
ical, like those of the natural world, should be effected by insen- 
sible gradations. In conducting the affairs of a great nation, we 
should at least exercise the moderate prescience and the common 
prudence of anticipating and preparing for the exigencies which 
are fast approaching. But, besides this, is it a correct principle 
that we should wait until we can remove duties from every thing 
before we shall relieve any ? Is there no choice in the objects of 
taxation ? Are we to exercise no judgment, and no discrimi- 
nation ? And what are the duties to be repealed, upon the extinc- 
tion of the national debt? We have the report of a Committee of 
the Senate, made two years since, containing a list of articles from 
which the imposts may then be wholly removed without affecting 
domestic industry. 

[Mr. Sprague here pi^esented a Schedule of Ai'ticles.] 

6 



82 TOXNAGE DUTY. 

Most of these are mere luxuries ; some of them pernicious lux- 
uries. Why, then, should -vve not now reduce the imposts upon 
articles of necessity, and continue them so much the longer upon 
those of a different character ? And, if a selection is to be made, 
what object can bear a comparison with navigation, which min- 
isters to your convenience and necessities in peace, and to your 
safety, strengtli, and glory, in war ? It is our greatest domes- 
tic manufacture. It gives constant employment to more than 
thirty thousand mechanics and laborers, and nearly a hundred 
thousand seamen, upon Avhich nearly half a million of persons are 
directly, and a much larger number indirectly, dependent for sub- 
sistence ; thus affording a great and certain home market for 
nearly twenty millions of dollars' worth of the products of the 
fiirmer and the manufacturer. And shall wq deny the small boon 
that is now asked for this great, suffering, national interest — em- 
bracing all classes of citizens, and every section of our country — 
until we can repeal the duties upon silks, Avines, and spices ? 
Shall we refuse to grant any, the slightest relief, to the oppressed 
industry of the mariner, artisan, and laborer, lest we should there- 
by occasion the somewhat longer continuance of the imposts iipon 
the gorgeous apparel, the liquors, and condiments, of the luxu- 
rious ? 

Another reason assigned by the gentleman why he will not 
extend relief to navigation, which is acknowledged to be suffering, 
is, that the South is burthened — his own constituents are depressed. 
And will he act upon the principle of bringing others down to be 
companions in misery ? Would he make them Avretched merely 
because he is so ? Would he refuse his aid to extinguish the 
flames of his neighbor's house, because his own had been con- 
sumed ? I forbear to comment upon the moral character of such 
a rule of action. I know the gentleman too Mcil to believe that 
he would delil)eratcly sanction it for a moment I am constrained, 
then, to suppose that the reason why it is so strongly insisted that 
this interest shall not be relieved until others are disburdened is, 
that it is wished to keep this measure in reserve, to be given here- 
after as an equivalent for others which the gentleman has at heart ; 
that it is designed to make it one of the elements of a legislative 
combination, by the strength of which propositions shall be forced 
through the House, which never coidd succeed by their individ- 
ual merits. Sir, in my judgment, such is not the course of duty. 



TONNAGE DUTY. 83 

Let each measure be decided by its own character ; let this bill 
stand by its own strength, or fall by its own weakness. I would 
not have it upborne on the current of legislation by extrinsic 
and adventitious aid, nor pressed down by foreign weight. 

We have heard much of retrenching the expenses of Govern- 
ment, and exonerating the people from useless impositions. Gen- 
tlemen have now an opportunity of acting upon those commend- 
able principles, and gratifying their laudable desires. I had hoped 
that this projDosition would conciliate general support, and unite 
even those who entertain the most irreconcilable opinions upon 
other subjects ; that the friends of Internal Improvement would 
perceive that it accorded with their views, and promoted their 
ardent wishes, by facilitating the communication and internal com- 
merce among the States ; and that those who are conscientiously 
adverse to the exercise of the power of making roads and canals, 
would unite in dispensing Avith an unnecessary and vexatious tax, 
since the revenue derived from it cannot be required for any pur- 
pose which they do not deem an infraction of the constitution. 
The anti-tariff gentlemen will, I trust, on this occasion, act upon 
their established principles, of resisting and removing all unneces- 
sary taxation ; while the friends of domestic industry will, I pre- 
sume, readily yield some little relief to the greatest of all Amer- 
ican manufactures, and eagerly avail themselves of an opportu- 
nity to make some slight, very slight atonement, for the burthens 
imposed and injuries inflicted by them, last year, in the passage 
of the tariff. 

Sir, the bill before us will be productive of some good and no 
evil. It is a measure propitious to the industry of various classes 
of citizens, and beneficial to the community at large, without 
involving the hazard of an injviry or inconvenience to a single 
individual. 



INDIAN TREATIES. 



INDIAN TREATIES. 



Senate, January 14, 1830. 

A Bill to appropriate Forty Thousand Dollars " for tlie purpose of 
holding Indian Treaties and extinguishing Indian Titles in the State of 
Indiana," being under consideration, Mr. Sprague addressed the Senate as 
follows : 

He objected to the amount of the appropriation contained in 
the bill. The sum of forty thousand dollars was much greater 
than could be necessary to defray the legitimate expenses of hold- 
ing a treaty. He presumed, therefore, that it was intended to 
form a part of the consideration to be given for the lands, which 
were to be obtained by the treaty. This, he considered improper, 
because, if the money was paid to the Indians immediately, the 
treaty would be carried into effect before it should have been sub- 
mitted to the Senate for their approbation and ratification ; thus 
depriving that body of its constitutional right, and executing the 
treaty without their sanction. The proper course was to stipulate 
in the treaty what should be done by the United States — then to 
submit it to the action of the Senate, and, if approved by them, 
execute it in good faith according to its terms. 

Mr. White, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, having made 
some remarks, Mr. Sprague continued the debate as follows : 

He said that the explanation of the Senator from Tennessee, 
who was at the head of the Committee on Indian Affairs, had not 



88 INDIAN TREATIES. 

removed liis objections to the amount of tlic proposed appropria- 
tion. Is the sum of foity thousand dollars necessary to defray 
the expenses of merely holding a treaty ? With Avhat nation does 
it cost half that sum to negotiate ? But it was said Ave must make 
provision for presents to he made to the Indians at the time of the 
negotiation, lie l;elieved that he understood how this power to 
make presents had been sometimes exercised. "When the Indians, 
the primitive, original in-oprictors of the soil, were unwilling to 
part with their hinds, particular chiefs, or other influential individ- 
uals, were applied to, their necessities and their cupidity Avere ap- 
pealed to, their passions and appetites were solicited, and presents 
Avcre made to them to purchase their consent and their influ- 
ence, to sacrifice the interest of their tribes, to betray the trust 
reposed in them by their nation. Such practices he reprobated, 
and he would not willingly put into the hands of our com- 
missioners the means of resorting to them, lie would appro- 
priate a sufficient sum to pay our own agents and commissioners, 
and their necessary expenses. He would leave the other party 
with whom we are about to make a solemn compact, to act freely 
and independently, according to their own conviction of their 
interest. Upon these terms he would treat, or not at all. lie 
wished not to acquire their property, nor divest them of their 
lands, unless it were done honestly, fairly, and justly. 

Mr. IIonilriolvH, Mr. White and Mr. King having addressed the Senate, 
Mr, Sprague replied as follows : 

He said that he was not opposed to negotiating Avith the Indians 
for the object of the bill, but to the means proposed in order to 
attain it. The Senator from Tennessee (jNIr. White) supposed 
that he had misappreheiuled Avhat Avas meant by the term presents. 
He Avilllngly accorded to that gentl(>man the utmost purity of 
intention ; but, Avhatever might be intended by him, he (Mr. 
Sprague) had not misunderstood the manner in Avhich this poAver 
to make presents had been sometimes exercised. We do knoAV, 
that, in order to get a treaty, secret and confidential agreements 
have been made by our commissioners Avith certain chiefs, to give 
them large sums to procure their assent and influence, agreements 
Avhich they dared aot make knoAvn to the tribe, and AvhIch Avere to 
buy them over to our interest, and to render them false and 
treacherous to their oAvn ])eoj)le, Avho had confided to them a sacred 



INDIAN TREATIES. 89 

trust. Mr. Sprague said he wished every agreement to appear on 
the foce of the treaty, that they might know what stipuhitions had 
been made, and with whom, and, therefore, was unwilUng to place 
in the hands of our commissioners large sums of money which 
they might dispose of in secret and confidential negotiations with 
individuals. There was no necessity for giving to our agents 
sxich a power. 

It was said, indeed, that we must subsist the Indians during 
the negotiation, and not only the chiefs, but the warriors, and 
their women and children ; that all must be drawn from their 
homes to the treaty ground ; that rations must be issued for their 
daily food ; and something in the nature either of presents or pay- 
ments must be given them in hand. And why is this necessary ? 
How do the Indian chiefs subsist themselves, in their own coun- 
cils, when we are not present ? What is the necessity of gather- 
ing together the females and their infants ? You thereby place 
them in our poM'er, and, after a short time, their own food being 
exhausted, we can offer them the alternative of submission to our 
terms, or starvation. He believed he understood what had some- 
times been the process of obtaining a cession of Indian lands. 
The chiefs, the head men, the wisest and most sagacious, were 
ojjposed to selling their country. They were operated upon not 
only directly, but indirectly. Large quantities of goods and mer- 
chandise, particularly such as are most attractive to the savage 
taste, are ostentatiously displayed to the assembled multitvide ; 
they are told, if a bargain shall be concluded, these shall be yours ; 
if not, even the daily food which you now receive shall be with- 
held ; the women and children are brought to influence their 
husbands and fathers by their entreaties and their wants ; the 
young and thoughtless among the warriors are made to press upon 
the older and more reflecting, and all to operate upon the chiefs, 
to subdue their firmness, and seduce them to our will. We may 
be told that this is the only mode of treating with the Indians, 
and that we cannot otherwise obtain their lands. If it be so, 
(said Mr. Sprague,) which he doubted, still the end cannot sanc- 
tify such unhallowed means. These feeble remnants of once 
mighty nations are in our power, at our mercy. He wished to 
obtain no treaty from them by the weight of such extraneous aid 
as the measvu-es he had described. If, without such appliances, 
they would not cede to us the inheritance of their fathers, let 
them retain it. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION, 



On the tweuty-ninth day of December, 1829, Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, 
offered, in the Senate of the United States, a Resolution, instructing the 
Committee on the Public Lands, to inquire into the Expediency of restrict- 
ing the Sales and Surveys of the Public Lands. This gave ri^e to the 
celebrated debate on Foot's Resolution, in which Mr, Webster made his 
great speech in answer to General Hayne of South Carolina. In the 
course of that debate, Mr. Benton made a vehement attack upon the 
North, and particularly upon New England, in answer to which, Mr. 
Sprague made the following Speech. 



FOOT'S EESOLUTIOX. 



Senate, February 3, 1830. 

First Speech by Mr. Sprague in the Debate on Foot's Resolution, in 
the Senate, on the 3d of February, 1830. 

He said it was with reluctance that he entered into this extra- 
ordinary debate. The gentleman who had just resumed his seat, 
(Mr. Benton,) had most gratuitously given to it an unpleasant 
sectional character. Some portion of his remarks i elated merely 
to measures of a party, in opposition to the administration of Mr. 
Jeiferson and Mr. Madison. Had he confined himself to those 
acts, I should not have felt myself constrained to participate in 
the discussion, because I was, from the first, politically opposed to 
them, and have never changed my sentiments. I mention this^ 
that the position which I occupy may be distinctly understood. 
Animadversions upon party measures, affect no particular geo- 
graphical division of the country, but only the individuals who 
sustained them, wherever they may reside. But the gentleman 
has assailed all the Northern States, and particularly those of 
New England ; accusing them of narrow views, and of systematic 
hostility, and injustice towards the West ; while, on the other 
hand, he has lauded the South as her generous, liberal, and mag- 
nanimous friend. Such assertions, in order to gain any credence, 
must be suppoi'ted by proof; of this, the gentleman seems to 
have been aware, and has accordingly attempted to sustain them 
by a recurrence to historical facts. I shall endeavor concisely to 
remark upon such as appear to be of importance enough to deserve 



96 FOOT'S IlESOLUTIOX. 

attention, and which have been stated Mith sufficient distinctness 
to render them susceptible of being followed. 

lie has gone back to the days of the Old Confederation, and 
the records of the Continental Congress, and dwelt upon certain 
proceedings, in 1786, relative to the defence of what was then 
the AVestcrn district of Virginia — now the State of Kentucky. A 
propo!>ition was made to send two comiwnies of federal troops to 
the Eapids of the Ohio. It is to be recollected that we had just 
then emerged from the war of the revolution ; that tremendous 
struggle, in Avhich we had strained every nerve to agony, and had 
sunk down to a state of exhaustion — destitute of money, without 
revenue and without credit. To send two companies to the then 
distant wilderness on the Ohio, was a severer burden upon the 
public finances, than to send thousands now to the mouth of the 
Columbia. Upon this proposition, the votes of New England 
■were equally divided. During its pendency, on the 21st of June, 
a motion was made by Mr. Lee, a delegate from Virginia, to add 
two companies more, making four in all, for her ihj'cnce, which 
was supported by that State alone, all the delegates from the 
other States, excepting one from Cieorgia, ansAvering in the 
negative. 

It was upon his stating this vote, that the gentleman exclaimed, 
in tones of delight and exultation, — Ma(;xammous Viugima ! 

She is a great and magnanimous State. I would not detract 
aught from her merits. New England seeks not to prostrate the 
fabric of others' fame, in order to erect her own from its frag- 
ments ; she is rich enough in her own splendid materials. But 
the gentleman has not been fortunate in selecting this vote, given 
for Iter own exclusive benefit against all the other States, as an illus- 
tration of her disinterestedness and liberality. To attribute in. 
this instance so great merit to her, is an implication of demerit in 
all the others, which I leave to be repelled by their older and 
abler representatives around me. 

On the 29th of June, eight days only after ;hc almost unani- 
mous refusal of Congress to send more than the two companies to 
the defence of ^ irginia, a committee, consisting of two members 
from that State, and one from Massachusetts, made a report in 
favor of authorizing the Commander of those two companies, to 
march into the Indian country and make war, or treat for peace, 
as he should see fit ; and also to call, at his pleasure, upon the 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 97 

Governor of Virginia, for one thousand militia. This report 
being under debate, a motion was made to postpone it for the 
present, in order to take up another proposition, which, after 
reciting that there Avas not sufficient evidence of Indian depreda- 
tions " to justify carrying war into their country," recommended the 
adoption, " icithout dclaij,^' of " such measures as shall effectually 
secure peace to the Indians, aud safety to the citizens inhabiting 
the frontiers of the United States." This motion, the Senator 
from Missouri pronounced *' cold-blooded, cruel, and inhuman — 
equalled only by the National Assembly of the French Revolu- 
tion ; which, when their fellow citizens were falling around them 
by the daggers of assassins, passed to the orders of the day." It 
was made by Mr. Pettit of Pennsylvania, and there were more 
votes for it out of New England than from within it. 

But if the gentleman's sensibilities were so much outraged by 
the idea of passing over that report in favor of war and blood- 
shed, even for a moment, in order to take up a substitute of peace 
and security, what will he say — how will he bear the shock, 
when he finds that a motion was made — not by a delegate from 
New England, nor even from the north of the Potomac, but from 
the south, from Georgia, to postpone the whole for six days ; and 
that there were no less than fifteen voices ill the affirmative, and 
two-thirds of them from without the limits of New England ! 
Nay, more, that this very report, wdiich it was so monstrous and 
horrible to hesitate even for a moment in adopting, was, upon the 
final question, absolutely rejected, and that, too, not by a bare 
majority of the Congress, but by a vote of two to one — six States 
to three ; and of the six, two only being from the Northeast ! 
And of the individual delegates, seventeen voted in the affirma- 
tive, and nine only in the negative ; Mr. Houston, of Georgia, 
being excused at his own request ! 

I have been accustomed, sir, from ray earliest recollections, to 
cherish the memory of those who composed the Continental Con- 
gress with reverence and gratitude. I have supposed that the 
very existence of this great, prosperous, and happy Republic, 
demonstrated the elevation of their intellectual and moral character, 
their wisdom, purity, and beneficence ; — that their monuments 
were everywhere, but over their graves. Is all this illusion ? Is 
their epitaph still to be written ? And shall we now inscribe 
upon their tomb — Here lie the members of the Continental Congress 
7 



98 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

o/" 1786 — those cold-hlooJcd, cruel, inhuman monsters, uho are to be 
paraJIcJcd in all history onhj bij ilie fiends of the French Revolndon, 
who icaslicd their hands in the blood of their brethren ! ! 

There arc some exaggerations too extravagant, even for the 
figures of rhetoric, or the fictions of poetry. 

^ly own section of country might he well content to appear 
soMihre and unlovely to that vision which can present the revered 
patriots of the revolution in colors so dark, and with features so 
distorted. 

The next topic of crimination against our forefathers, was a 
clause originally inserted in the ordinance for ascertaining the 
mode of disposing of lands in the western country, when it was 
reported by a committee, in 1785, and which prohibited the sale, 
by the public officer, of a second township, bij sections, until after 
all the first should have been disposed of. It arose from an evident 
soHcitude for the security of the frontier settlers, and a desire to 
keep them in some measure compact, that they might be compe- 
tent to their own protection, instead of scattering over immense 
forests beyond the reach of timely succor. This is well known 
to have been the policy of Washington. It is not a little singular 
that tl;e gentleman should have made this a theme of reiterated 
and vehement condemnation, when he had just before complained 
so loudly of an alleged indifference to the safety of the new 
settlements. He insists that a majority of the committee lived 
north of the Potomac, and that their o])ject Avas to stint the growth 
of the West. He did not tell us mIio composed it. [Mr. Benton 
explained by reading the names of a committee consisting of one 
from each State, A. D., 1785. Mr. Sprague proceeded.] The 
committee, which the gentleman had just named, Mas not that 
which originally reported the ordinance, but one to Avhom it "vvas 
subsequently referred, and who do not appear to have made any 
amendments or alterations. It wa8, I beheve, first reported in 
May, 1784, by a conmiittce consisting of Mr. Jefferson, of \'w- 
ginia, JViliiamson, of North Carolina, Reed, of South C'arolina, 
Howell, of Rhode Island, and Gerry, of Massachusetts ; and its 
paternity is thus transferred to the south side of the Potomac. It 
was not finally acted upon during tliat session ; and, at the com- 
mencement of the next session, in November, 1785, all the 
imfinished business of the preceding was taken up, and this 
appears to have been subsequently referred to the larj;e committee 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 99 

which the gentleman has mentioned. But the justice and charity 
with which sinister motives are attributed to the North, is further 
illustrated b}^ the fact, that upon the motion of Mr, McHenry to 
strike out this obnoxious clause, every member, with the single 
exception of Mr. Howell, of Rhode Island, answered in the affirma- 
tive ; and yet it is insisted that the North, who had the whole per- 
fectly in their power, Avere wickedl}^ intent upon it as a means to 
cramp the growth of the West, and were defeated only by those of 
a more magnanimous region. 

By the same ordinance, one-third part of all the mines of gold, 
silver, copper, and lead, were in all sales to be reserved to the 
Government. Upon a motion to strike out this reservation, and 
thus leave the whole to the purchasers, Massachusetts was divided, 
Rhode Island divided, and all the other States, and all the other 
delegates, excepting Mr. Monroe, answered in the negative. This 
instance of comparative liberality, seems to have wholly escaped 
the gentleman's observation. 

Strange as it may seem, it has, in this Debate, been made mat- 
ter of loud and bitter complaint, that the United States have sold 
the Public Lands for money — have coined the soil into gold and 
silver, as it was expressed. The right and the obligation of the 
Government to do this, have been so unanswerably established by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, (INIr. Webster,) that I shall 
not discuss it. It would be useless, indeed, for me to follow 
where is seen the giant's track. I shall endeavor, throughout, to 
avoid the ground which he has occupied. I will only now add, 
that, however illiberal some persons may now consider the selling, 
instead of giving away this common property of the nation, it is 
not a mere Yankee notion, nor even confined to the wrong side of 
Mason and Dixon's line ; but has, from the first, been insisted 
upon by the statesmen of the more congenial South. In Feb- 
ruary, 1786, a committee of Congress, consisting of Messrs. 
Pinckney, of Sovith Carolina, McKean, of South Carolina, Mon- 
roe, of Virginia, King, of Massachusetts, and Pettit, of Penn- 
sylvania, held the following language : " We contemplate with 
great satisfaction, the prospect of extinguishing a part of the 
domestic debt, by the sales of the western lands, but a consider- 
able time must elapse," etc. And, in the Virginia Convention, in 
1788, Mr. Harrison said, "The hack lands and imposts will be 
sufficient for all the exigencies of Government." Mr. Grayson 



100 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

spoke of the " domestic debt being diminished by the sale of 
western lands ; " and Mr. Madison, speaking of the Mississippi, 
said, " A material consideration was, tliat the cession of that river 
Mould diminisli the value of the western country, which was a 
common full t1 for tJtc United State?!, and would, consequently, tend 
to impoverish thc'ir pnh/ic treasvri/. These, sir, rcere rational 
o-rminds." And in 178(), the Virginia delegation in Congress, 
with reference to the same subject, say, — " The States who have 
ceded it, and the Confederacy at lara:e, look up to the irestern 
lands as a suhstantial fund for the discharge of the public debt." 

Tim navigation (f the Mississippi occupied a laige space in the 
gentleman's contrast of sectional liberality and illil:)erality. It is 
indeed a subject of importance, and vastly more M'orthy of atten- 
tion than most of those upon which he hns expatiated. 

The specifi«ation of charge is, that in the year 1786, ]Mr. Jay, 
then Sscretary of Foreign Affairs, proposed the making of a 
treaty with Gardoqui, the Spanish INIinister, by Avhich the naviga- 
tion of that river should be relinquished to Spain for twenty-five 
or thiity vears, in consideiation of certain comniei'cial stipulations 
for mutual interchange of commodities, by which all the produc- 
tions of this country, with the exception of tobacco, weie to be 
received into the Spanish dominions. This proposition was sup- 
ported by the States of the North ; and the gcutlomau charitably 
supposes, from a desire to deprive their fellow citizens of the 
West, of that great highway, so essential to their prosperity. 

It is to be recollected that Spain, being then in possession of 
Louisiana and the Floridas, most positively and peremptorily 
denied that we had any light to participate in the use of that 
river. Prostrated as our strength and finances then Avere, the 
country was not in a condition to enforce our claim by arms. 
Thus situated, it was apiiareiit that we couhl have no immediate 
cnjovmeut of the waters of the ^Iisi-issii)pi, and it was believed 
that, the best mode of securing the future iiermanent possession of 
them was, to lease it lor a while to the Spanish government for 
a valuable consideiation ; and that, by assenting to such an 
arrangement, and holding it by our permission, Spain Mould 
unequivocally acknowledge our right, w iiirli would revert to us, 
accompanied by the possession, at the expiration of the stij)ulated 
term. And it Mas thought, moreover, that it Mould be dishonor- 
able to the country, to suffer a foreign nation to Mithhold it from us 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 101 

in a hostile attitude. It was also apprjhended, that Great Britain 
would unite with Spain in resisting our claim, and excluding us 
forever from the enjoyment of our right. 

These facts rest upon no doubtful authority ; they are supported 
by the disinterested testimony of high-minded and honorable men, 
actors in the scenes which they describe, and who, in 1788, were 
willing to do that justice to their associates, which is now attempted 
to be withdrawn. 

General Lee, in the Virginia Convention, made the following 
statement : 

"I feel myself called on, by the honorable gentleman, to come forward and 
tell the truth about the transaction respecting the Missi8.s!ppi." " There 
are men of integrity and truth here, who were also then in Congress. I 
call on them to put me right, with respect to those transactions. As far 
as I could gather from what was then passing, I believe there was not a 
gentleman in that Congress who had an idea of surrendering the naviga- 
tion of that river. Tliey thought of the best mode of securing it. Some 
thought one way, and some another way. I was one of those men who 
thought the mode which has been alluded to, the best to secure it. I 
shall never deny that it was my opinion. I was one peculiarly interested. 
I had a fortune in that country, purchased, not by paper money, but by 
gold, to the amount of eight thousand pounds. But private interest could 
not have influenced me. The public welfare was my criterion. In my 
opinion I united private interest to public interest — not of the whole 
people of Virginia, but of the United States. I thought I was promoting 
the real interests of the people." 

Mr. Madison said : 

" There were seven States who thought it right to give up the naviga- 
tion of the Mississippi for twenty-five years, for several reasons, which 
have been mentioned. As far as I can recollect, it was nearly as my 
honorable friend said ; but they had no idea of absolutely alienating it. 
I think one material consideration which governed them, was, that there 
were grounds of serious negotiation between Great Britain and Spain, 
which might bring on a coalition between those nations, which might 
enable them to bind us on different sides, permanently withhold that 
navigation from us, and injure us in other respects materially. The 
temporary cession, it was supposed, would fix the permanent right in our 
favor, and prevent that dangerous coalition." 

For these transactions, as affecting the interests of the region 
beyond the Alleghanies, the gentleman has cast unmeasured 



102 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

opprobrium upon the North, and bestowed a correspondmg eulo- 
gium upon the South, particukrly Virginia. With what justice 
or candor -may be seen, not only from what has just been stated, 
but from the facts which 1 shall hereafter adduce, and to which 
he has made no allusion. 

That a majority of the delegates from Virginia were opposed 
to the contemplated treaty, is unquestionably true ; but, is there 
not reason to believe that this was occasioned, in some degree at 
least, by the circumstance that her great staple, tobacco, was not 
provided for ; especially when we find that one of her most 
eminent citizens, Mr. Monroe, disapproved of it, merely for its 
commercial regulations. 

But the delegation from that State, in the same year, 1786, 
themselves proposed to enter into iicrmunent stipulations with 
Spain, by Avhich we should reJ Inquish, forever , all right of trans- 
porfivg any articles; vp the Mississi'pin , from its mouth; and New 
Orleans should be made an entrepot, at which our produce, carried 
dow7i the river, shoidd be landed, and pay duties to the Spanish 
Croivn ; and a Consul of the United States there should be, 
responsible for every violation of these engagements ! Now, sir, 
compare these renunciations and sacrifices, to endure through all 
time, with the mere temporary relinquishment, for tAventy-five or 
thirty years, and let the candid and intelligent declare which 
would have been most wise, and have best secured the true and 
permanent interests and safety of the Western country. 

But the comparison ends not here. There was a time when 
the Southern States, and Virginia- uith the rest, were disposed to 
male an absolute and perfect surrender of all rights to the waters (f 
the Mississippi, but the Northern and Eastern States opposed it. 
It was at the period of their greatest distress, and for the purpose 
of obtaining succor from Spain. For this, we have the high 
authority of Mr. jNIadison himself, who says : 

"It was soon perceived, after the conniiencenicnt of the war with 
Britain, that, among the various objects that woul i affect the happiness of 
the people of America, the navigation of the Mississippi was one. — 
Throughout the whole history of foreign negotiation, great stress was 
laid on its preservation. In tlie time of our greatest distresses, and par- 
ticularly when the Southern States were the scenes of war, the Southern 
States cast their c^'es around to be relieved from their misfortunes. It 
was supposed that assistance might be obtained for the rclinquishmeyit of 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 103 

that navigation. It was thought that, for so substantial a coiisidoratiou, 
Spain might be induced to aftbrd decisive succor. It was opposed by the 
No''-thern and Easfern States. They were sensible that it might be dan- 
gerous to surrender this important right, particidarly to the inhabitants 
of the western country. But so it was, that the Southern States were for 
it, and the Eastern States opposed it." 

And Mr. Monroe, after speaking of the constant efforts of Vir- 
ginia to preserve this navigation, says : 

" There was a time, it is true, when even this State, in some measure, 
abandoned the object bj authorizing this cession to the Court of Spain." 

It is not my purpose to censure those "svho advocated that sur- 
render. They fek themselves constrained by the necessities of 
the war. But the Northern States, more unyiekhng in their pur- 
pose, never despaired of the Repubhc ; they sent their own sons 
to fight the battles of their distant brethren, and freely furnished, 
from within themselves, that succor which others were willing to 
purchase from foi'eign hands, at so great a price — and now they 
are, even here, rew-arded with contumely and reproach. 

Such is the effect of partial or distorted views of distant events ; 
of resting upon insulated parts of remote transactions ; of seizing 
and following the mere shreds of history, which lead to error and 
injustice, instead of light and truth. 

By the terms of the treaty proposed by ]Mr. Jay, and which 
have been so much reprobated, Spain was to receive all the pro- 
ductions of the United States, with the exce^Dtion of a single 
article ; and yet the gentleman has, somehow, fallen into the 
error of asserting that the privilege was confined to fish and oil — 
which he several times repeated, adding, in a particular tone, " id 
est, from New Engla/td." Sir, whatever the manner in which 
that gentleman may choose to allude to the fruits of their labor, 
it is not in his power to depreciate the merits or importance of 
our hardy fishermen — of that class of men, who, with John 
Manly, in 1775, first unfurled the American banner upon the 
ocean, and first caused the proud cross of St. George to bow to 
it in submission. 

Yet eveu the fisheries — the right which Heaven gave, wher- 
ever the winds would waft or the waves would bear us, which 
were deemed so highly of, that Mr. Grayson denominated them 



104 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

the cornfields of tlie East ; even tlicse were so far abandoned 
that the Congress refused to make their preservation a sine (pia 
non of a treaty, but authorized peace to be conchided "svith:;at any 
stipidations for their security. Thanks to the wisdom and firm- 
ness of the Commissioners who saved lis from that cahimity. 

In January, 1803, President Jefferson nominated llobert R. 
Livingston and James ]\Ionroe co-ministeis to the French Repub- 
lic, for tlie purpose of obtaining from the First Consul an extension 
of our rights on the ^lississippi. Upon the question of confirma- 
tion, by the Senate, of the nomination of ]Mr. Monroe, there were 
fifteen affirmatives and twelve negatives. And this opposition is 
made food for accusation against the States of the Koitheast, as 
evincing hostility to the objects of the mission and the interests to 
be effected by it. Yet, Sir, Avithout the affirmative votes which 
were given from those States, ]Mr. ^lonroe's nomination could not 
have been confirmed : for, if you subtract the three votes which 
their Senators gave in favor, and place them in opposition to the 
confirmation, there would have been but twelve for and fifteen 
against it. But, on the same page of the Journal, and in the sen- 
tence next preceding the statement of the question of Mr. Mon- 
roe's appointment, we find that the nomination of Mr, Livingston 
was confirmed without a division. The mission and its jmrjioses 
were thus unanimously approved. The votes against Mr, Monroe 
must have arisen from the conviction that the expense of a second 
minister Avas unnecessary ; and, when we consider the ability of 
Chancellor Tnvingston, and the subsequent history of the negotia- 
tion, that opinion may not appear to have been Avholly unfounded. 
On the same page, too, we find that Mr. Monroe Avas immediately, 
without a division, confirmed as ]Ministcr to Spain, in conjunction 
with Mr. Finckney, the object of that mission being also avowedly 
to secure and extend our rights to the Mississippi, It is strange, 
indeed, that these facts should h.ave escaped the gentleman's 
scrutiny. 

When the Louisiana treaty Avas presented to the Senate, in 
October, 1803, there Avere tAventy-seven votes in favor of its rati- 
fication, and seven only against it ; and this, too, is made a topic 
of crimination against those on our side of the Potomac. Yet, of 
those yeas, one half Avere by Senators north of th.it river, and 
four of them from Ncav England ; and, as it lequired tAvo thirds 
to ratify, these four had it in their poAver to have rejected the 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 105 

treaty. Is this evidence of Xorthern hostility to the West ? Mr, 
Jefferson, in 1805, attributed that opposition to higher and purer 
motives — to a " candid apprehension that the enlargement of our 
territory would endanger the Union." And we shall presently 
see that there may have been other reasons also in accordance 
with his own opinions. 

The gentleman inveighed vehemently against the North, for 
its alleged opposition to the admission of Louisiana into the 
Union, the evidence of which was, that, M'lien the bill for that 
purpose was before the Senate, an amendment was proposed by 
Mr. Dana, providing that it should not take effect until the consent 
of each. State should have been obtained. Yet this proposition 
was defeated by Northern Senators : if they had voted in the 
affirmative, it M'ould have prevailed by a vote of eighteen to ten. 
The whole amendment of Mr. Dana consisted of two alternative 
propositions, providing that the act should not take effect until 
the consent of each State should have been obtained, or the Con- 
stitution Iiave been so amended as to authorize Congress to pass the 
act. A division of the question being required, a distinct vote 
was taken on the first proposition ; which alone seems to have 
been selected for special animadversion. I marvel much that the 
gentleman's vision should have been confined to one-half of the 
amendment, especially when he was in search of motives, and 
they would have been clearly disclosed by a glance at the other 
half. Doubts were entertained of the constitutional power of 
Congress to admit Louisiana. And were not those doubts 
entitled to respect ? Is it not known that Mr. Jefferson himself, 
to whose opinions the gentleman bows with such profound rever- 
ence, repeatedly declared, in his letters to Mr. Dunbar and others, 
that Congress had no such power ; and, if I mistake not, Mr. 
Madison, in March, 1803, then Secretary of State, framed his 
instructions to Messrs. Livingston and Monroe upon the. basis of 
this constitutional disability. He was so particular as to give a 
formula of some of the articles to be inserted in the proposed 
treaty, for the acquisition of Louisiana, one of which is prescribed 
in these words : 

"To incorporate tlie inhabitants of the newly ceded territory with the 
citizens of the United States, on an equal footing, being a provision which 
cannot now be made, it is to be expected, from the character and policy of 



106 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

the United States, that such incorporation will UAe "place without umirces- 
sary delay. In the mean time, they shall be secure in their persons and 
property, and in the free enjoyment of their religion." 

Here, Sir, our negotiators were unequivocally "warned not only 
to make no agreement for the admission of the inhabitants of the 
ceded territory into the Union, but to declare that such a stipu- 
lation could not then he mude. By what was it prohibited except 
the limits of the Constitution ? And what was the necessary delay, 
but to obtain the requisite authority by amendment ? On the 
twelfth of August, 1803, after the signing of the treaty, and 
before its ratification, Mr. Jefferson holds the following strong 
and explicit language, in a letter to Mr. Breckcnridge : 

" This treaty must, of course, be laid before both Houses, because both 
have important functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will 
see their duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it, so as to 
secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their 
power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the iiat.ion for an addi- 
tional ar'ide to the Constitntion approvi'ig and confirming an act which 
the nation had not previously authorized. The Coiistitution has " ade no 
provision for our holding foreign territory, still less fok incouporating 
FOnEiGN nations INTO OUR Union. The Lxccutivc, in seizi?ig the fugi- 
tive occ7irrence which so much advances the good of the country, have 
done an act against the Constitution.^^ 

It is not my intention to enter into the argument or even to 
express an opinion upon the subject, but merely to show that it is 
not strange that seven Senators, or even a Committee of the Leg- 
islature of Massachusetts, should have doubted the existence of a 
constitutional power, which President Jefferson so peremptorily 
denied. 

The Missouri question lias been invoked upon this occasion. 
It is not a correct representation to say that the Nortli were 
opposed to the admission of that State. I hey proffered her their 
cordial embrace. But they wished to exclude Involuntary servi- 
tude from her limits ; and, believing It, as they did, most sincerely 
and conscientiously to be a great moral and political evil, they 
were actuated by no feelings of unkindness, but the purest mo- 
tives of justice and benevolence, in endeavoring to secure what to 
them seemed a great blessing to her citizens. That it was a dis- 
interested effort on the part of the Northern States, is attested by 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 107 

the Senator from Soutli Carolina, who declares it to be for their 
interest that slavery should exist at the South. 

As to the admission of Mississippi, the preparatory act author- 
izing the formation of her constitution passed without a division 
through the various stages in the Senate, until it came to the 
question of engrossment, to which there were eleven negatives. 
Those gentlemen might have thought the application premature. 
But I shall not stop to inquire into their motives, because I per- 
ceive among them the name of the venerable Macon, of North 
Carolina, who so recently occupied a seat here, and to whose suc- 
cessor, now near me, it belongs, to vindicate him from any asper- 
sion upon his intention ; and also the name of an honorable 
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Smith,) now in his seat ; 
for whose conduct it would be presumptuous in me to assign 
reasons, he being so eminently able to answer for himself. 

The resolution for the final admission of that State was reported 
by a committee, on the third of December, 1817, being the third 
day of the session, was forthwith, by unanimous consent, read a 
first, second and third time, and actually passed on the same day, 
although any one member might have required its postponement. 
This shows how far there was a disposition to retard her progress 
into full communion with the American family. 

I do not intend to exhaust the patience of the Senate, by fol- 
lowing the gentleman through all the little, trifling incidents to 
which he 1 as resorted to sustain his general position. Their 
importance and pertinency may be illustrated by his thrice-told 
story of an illumination at the surrender of Detroit, which flashed 
upon the world, for the first time, in the gentleman's speech. I 
have not been able to find any one who ever heard of it before. 
[Here Mr. Benton spoke to jNIr. Sprague in an under tone.] He 
now tells me that it was in a small village in New Hampshire. I 
doubt the fact ; but, even if some individual there had the folly to 
put an extra candle in his window, is it to be gravely attributed 
to a general animosity of the people towards their fellow-citizens, 
who were thousands of miles distant ? 

Another matter of almost equal gravity, was that General Hull, 
a few years ago, was actually invited to dine with some of his 
friends ; and the convivialities of the festive board are, by the 
gentleman's imagination, converted into the acrid humors of invet- 
erate hostility. This occurrence took place long since the termi- 



108 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

nation of the last Avar. General Hull had just then presented to 
the public some new explanatory statements in an appeal Avell 
adapted to excite commiseration. Some persons who had known 
that veteran officer of the revolution, in other and better days, 
listening only to his own story, were convinced that he had been 
wronged. Their sympathy was excited, and they extended the 
hand of charity and friendship to soothe the feelings of his estima- 
ble family, as well as to alleviate his own sufierings, and smooth 
his path to the grave. And this act of personal friendship and 
benevolence is adduced as proof that not only those individuals, 
but the inhabitants of New England generally, are actuated by 
unhallowed passions of enmity toAvard others. 

After Aaron Burr's conspiracy, and subsequent to his arrest as 
a criminal, he Avas invited to a dinner at Richmond, and sat doAvn 
at the same table Avith the Chief Justice, before Avhom he Avas soon 
to be arraigned upon a charge of high treason. Did any one ever 
imagine that this Avas to be chaiged as a State offence, for Avhich 
the people of Virginia Avere responsible ? Nay, may not circum- 
stances have existed Avhich Avould exempt even the individuals from 
imputation? Sure I am, that not the slightest shade rests upon 
the fame of that Avonderful man, to Avhose intellect the most 
powerful minds, and to Avhose goodness the purest hearts, do 
willing homage. 

It has been broadly and strongly asserted, that " tlic North have 
from (he beginning dune all in their power to cripple and strangle 
the Went ; " and all historical facts, no matter hoAv various or 
opposite their character, Avhich pass through the alembic of the 
gentleman's speech, are made to yield the bitter spirit of Northern 
hostility. 

If the act be in any degree doubtful in its appearance, it is of 
course viewed in its most offensive aspect. And if it be one of 
iinmixcd Avisdom and beneficence, still its brightness is to be over- 
shadoAved by the ascription of impure and sombre motives. 
When the stream fertilizes and gladdens every thing in its course, 
still it may be insisted that the invisible fountain is corrupted and 
poisonous. At one time to decline a reduction of the price of the 
public lands, or even to require any price whatever, is crying and 
unheard of injustice — the poverty of the people is portrayed to 
us in glowing colors — and we are told that Ave are grinding them 
into the dust by our exactions. But Avhen Ave do reduce the 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 109 

price, or even relinquish existing debts, we are answered by the 
gentleman that no thanks are due to us ; so far from a favor, it is 
an offence, because it carries with it an implication of poverty and 
inability to pay, which should be repelled as an insult- Even the 
system of internal improvements has, in his view, ceased to be 
beneficial to the West — nay, positively injurious. All its fi'uits 
have been blasted by the friendly salutations of the northern 
breeze. He tells us that, if a road or canal be of any utility 
to a State, its benefits are to be measured only by the distance 
which it passes within her limits; and thus the $1,721,845, 
expended upon the Cumberland road, this side of Ohio, although 
projected as a Westei'n measure, urged as a Western measure, and 
adopted and sustained as a AVestern measure, is, in fact, only for 
the benefit of the East. But, unfortunately for his argument, that 
East lies wholly on the South side of Mason and Dixon's line. 
By this criterion, no matter what great avenues and markets are 
open to our citizens, they are cf no value to them, if beyond the 
limits of their own particular State. By this means, too, he 
charges all the works for public defence, and improvement of har- 
bors, to the particular section in* which they are located. He 
might have extended the principle, and considered a fortification 
to be for those merely who inhabit the little island upon which it 
is placed ; — or a lighj:house, for the sole accommodation of its 
keeper, the only tenant of the rock where it stands. 

Sir, every man who produces or consumes any thing that is 
transported along our coast, or imported from, or exported to, 
any foreign country, is interested in these facilities to our com- 
merce and navigation. If we owned not a ship in the United 
States, but depended solely upon fo:eigners for the vehicles of 
our commerce, still we must afford these accommodations, or pay 
more than their expense in the enhanced price of transportation, 
and rate of freight and insurance. Suppose we had adopted the 
gentleman's new criterion of the benefit of avenues of intercom- 
munication, when we were securing the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi, that great highway of nature, and had said that the pro- 
ductions of each State may float upon its majestic current, to its 
own borders, but no further, and that even this privilege is to be 
extended to those only whose territory is actually washed by its 
waters t Would this have satisfied the demands of the inhabitants, 
and secured to them the benefits which they now enjoy ? 



110 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

The gentleman undertook a comparison of the appropriations 
for the improvement of certain sections of country, but cntlrelij 
overloolrd the immense donations of Public Lands to his own 
favorite region, which, at flic min'nnvm yricc, have amounted to 
no less than nine DiiUion seven hwiflred and Jijhj-nine ihovsand 
Jive hundred and four dollar^, as appears by a statement from the 
Secretary of tlie Treasury — an amount far greater than the aggre- 
gate of all the sums embraced by his enumeration. 

" The North," says the gentleman, have " from the beginning, 
done all in their power to cripple and strangle the West." Sir, 
before such an assertion was hazarded, all our history should have 
been dispassionately examined. It should have been recollected 
that, of the old thirteen States, nine irere North (f the Potomac 
— that, in their hands, was the whole western country, to be 
moulded at pleasure — that they could have sealed up the magnif- 
icent Mississippi, and devoted the immense regions upon its bor- 
ders to beasts and savages ; or, if populated, they could forever 
have refused to receive them into the American family, or extend 
to them the rights and privileges of American citizens. K.ven 
the five New England States, constituting, as they did, more than 
one third of the whole number, might forever have excluded 
Louisiana and Florida, and have rejected every treaty for enlarg- 
ing or confirming the privileges of the West. The power of the 
North was ample, complete, and irresistible, over the whole 
region beyond the Alleghanies ; and, instead of being employed to 
wither and destroy, it has been assiduously exerted to cherish, sus- 
tain, and strengthen. Its inhabitants were regarded as children ; 
bone of our bone — flesh of our flesh : their infant steps were sus- 
tained, and their path defended by the strong arm of the nation. 
We rejoice in their prosperity -, the blessed fruit of our own 
benignant care. We receive them cordially to the full communion 
of all the inestimable blessings of free Government and Repub- 
lican institutions, which had been purchased by the blood of our 
fathers. We parted to them our inheritance — we gave them of our 
strength — we resigned to them our power. From being more 
than two thirds of the whole number, we have voluntarily, by our 
own generous acts, made ourselves a minority of the States. And 
now we are told — here, in the Senate C/hamber of the United 
States — that " the North have, from the beginning, done all in 
their power to cripple and strangle the West " ! ! ! 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. HI 

Sir, I deeply dej^lore the cause, be it what it may, Avhich can, at 
any time, or in any place give birth to declarations of such a 
character, tending to alienate the affections, and poison the mutual 
confidence, of different portions of our country. 

Heaven itself has made them for union and happiness ; and 
man and woman might as well quarrel Avith each other for the 
difference of their formation, as the great geographical divisions, 
of our Eepublic, for the features and adaptations which their 
Creator has given them. 

Mr. Sprague said he would now turn his attention to some of 
the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina, (]Mr. Hayne.) 
That gentleman, after expressing his regret that the controversy 
should become secUunal , and lamenting the supposed necessity of 
assuming an unfriendly attitude, proceeded to present the South- 
ern States and New England in hostile array against each other. 
He (Mr. Sprague) believed, that the responsibility of giving the 
debate that character must rest principally upon the gentleman 
himself, for there had been nothing in any previous speech which 
called for the attack which he had made upon the Northeastern 
States. I, (said Mr. Sprague,) will not follow his example ; but, as 
far as possible, consistently with my duty, avoid every unpleasant 
allusion. From my earliest recollections, I have been deeply 
impressed with the sentiments inculcated' by the Farewell Address 
of the Father of his Country, in which we are taught " to frown 
indignantly upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate 
one portion of our country from the rest," and to lament that 
geographical discriminations of Northern and Southern, Atlantic 
and Western, should ever occasion the belief that there could be 
any distinction of views or interest. 

But if these distinctions are insisted on by the citizens of one 
portion of our country — if the line of the Potomac is to be con- 
stantly drawn by those who live South of it, must they not expect 
that those who live North will sometimes remind them that there 
are two sides to that line ? Or, if they point to a still narrower 
circle, and, making the six Northeastern States their line of 
demarcation, constantly allude to them in ungracious tones, must 
not New England of necessity assume a corresponding attitude, 
and poise herself upon her own energies ? 

Sir, we do firmly believe that we have exercised towards our 
distant brethren that " charity " which " suffereth long and is 



112 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

kind;" M-liich " envicth not;" wliicli " Viuiutetli not itself;" 
" doth not behave itself unseemly ; " " is not easily provoked ; " 
" thinketh no evil ; " " rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in 
the truth." 

The gentleman's attack upon New England has rested almost 
exclusively upon the transactions of the late ■\var. If his only 
object had been to condemn certain measures of the leaders of a 
party there in opposition to the war, I shoidd not deem it neces- 
sary to make a single remark in reply. I resisted them to the 
utmost of my ability at the time of their greatest strength, and my 
opinions are still unchanged. But I can assent to no indiscrimi- 
nate censure. If it was intended to fix any stigma upon the gen- 
eral character of the peojile of New England, I, although the 
humblest of their representatives here, feel bound to repel it. 
We have tlic explicit declaration of jNIr. Monroe himself, then 
Secretary of War, and since deliberately made, that the confidence 
of the Government in the People of Massachusetts, was never 
shaken for a moment. 

[Mr. llayne explained, by saying that he never intended to cast 
any leproach upon the people of New England. That his 
remarks were confined to a particular party, which he had desig- 
nated and described.] 

Mr. Sprague resumed. Although such were the ideas con- 
veyed by one portion of the gentleman's speech ; yet, taken in 
connexion with his declaration of war, at its commencement, a 
different result would seem to follow. He at first regretted that 
the contest should be sectional, and then arrayed the South against 
New England as opposing sections of count nj ; and, having thus 
proclaimed the war by geographical lines, he, of course, assumed 
a hostile attitude toward the people of that territory which he 
assailed. A\'^hy should he regret the peculiar character of the 
contest as sectional, if it was merelv one of old political parties? 
I am quite willing, however, to receive the exj)lanation which the 
gentleman has just given, and shall omit some of the remarks 
which I had contemplated. If his only object, in entering the 
territory of New England, was to thrust at the dead, or wave his 
sword in triumph over their graves, I do not envy him eilher the 
glory cr the magnanimity of the achievement. I3ut there are 
some topics to which I shall advert, because they have been 
treated in a manner calculated to produce an injurious effect, 
whatever may have been the purpose of their introduction. 



FOOT'S EESOLUTION. 113 

The Hartford Convention has filled no small space in this discus- 
sion ; it is wielded as a powerful engine against the Northeastern 
States. I remember it well, and have never spoken of it but in 
terms of decided condemnation. It had but few friends while 
living, and still fewer mourners to follow it to the grave ; and if 
its skeleton is now dug up, and held on high to the view of the 
whole nation, it will cast its shade upon a small part only of 
the fair surface of New England. 

The sermoDS of Osgood and Parish have been produced here, 
and inflamed passages read, avowedly as evidence of public senti- 
ment, and the gentleman called the writers " pious and good men." 
So do not I. Sir, they were infuriated fanatics — political mad- 
men — condemned by the sober-minded of their own party ; and I 
would as soon produce the outpourings of Bedlam as proof of 
public opinion as effusions such as theirs. 

The honorable Senator told us, with great emphasis, that the 
enemy was permitted to establish himself, and to open a custom 
house upon the soil of Massachusetts j and so much reliance did 
he place upon this, as a cause of reproach, that it v>as reiterated 
three times in the course of his speech. It is most unjust. The 
peoj)le of that State, without distinction of party, were at all times 
resolved to defend their territory, and prompt in resisting the 
approach of the enemy. The gentleman's allusion could not be 
misunderstood ; it was to the capture and detention of Castine, a 
small village situated on a little peninsula, on the eastern side of 
the Penobscot river, in the remote parts of Maine, where the adja- 
cent country contains but a sparse population. It is connected 
with the main land only by a narrow neck, and is surrounded, on 
its various sides, by water deep enough to float ships of the larg- 
est class, which might, within point-blank shot, command every 
part of the village. I verily believe that a large naval force might 
bring more guns to bear upon that place than tliere were men in 
it at the time of its capture. So situated, and destitute of the 
means of efficient defence, an overwhelming British fleet captured 
and took possession of it. I would ask the gentleman what resist- 
ance he himself would have made. Could he have Avithstood 
the batteries of that fleet with nothing but his sword or his mus- 
ket ? The idea of successful resistance would have been mere 
fatuity. But it is said the enemy retained the place, and opened 
a custom house. It was not taken until about the first day of 
8 



114 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

September, 1814, antl the treaty of peace -was signed in Decem- 
ber of the same year, of which information reached us in Febru- 
ary following. Could it have been retaken ? The British had 
there a large military and naval force. The neck which connects 
the peninsula with the main land is so Ioav and narrow that a 
canal was dug across it, and Castine was thereby converted into 
an island. All access to it was completely commanded by the 
guns of the enemy's fleet, and we had not a single ship to aid us ; 
beside which, the whole seaboard of Maine, for more than two 
hundred miles, and its numerous rivers, bays and inlets^ contain- 
ing millions of shipping, were constantly harassed by the enemy 
ranging along the coast, and requiring the presence of the militia 
at every point to repel his threatened depredations. And, even 
if the militia could have been spared for the enterprise, and it had 
been possible to recapture the place, the British might easily have 
taken possession of any of the numerous adjacent islands in the 
Penobscot Bav, and carried on all his operations with great liicility. 

Are we then to be repeatedly reproached with the capture of 
Castine, and that too here — in this Capitol — within these walls, 
which have but just risen from the conflagration of the enemy, 
and are hardly yet purifled from the pollution of hostile feet ; and 
having, at this moment, at your public navy yard here, a monu- 
ment bearing an inscription perpetuating the presence and the 
barbarism of the British ! And these acts done, not under the 
guns of their ships, but by a few thousand men marching fifty 
miles by land, through a population of tMo hundred thousand 
persons ; and you having here, in aid of the militia, a thousand 
regular troops, a public armory, and the bi'ave little band of sail- 
ors commanded by the gallant Barney ! 

The gentleman from South Carolina himself told us — I would 
not otherwise have alluded to the fact — that his own State was 
completely overrun during the war of the revolution. It was so 
indeed. The British considered it entirely subdued, and, for a 
time, held over it resistless sway. I mention it not as a reproach ; 
it was inevitable. But that gentleman sliould have been the last 
to suggest the idea that the presence of an enemy upon tlie soil is 
a necessary impeachment of the patriotism or gallantry of the 
people. 

ISIaine, from its local position, was more exposed than any 
other State in the Union ; having Lower Canada on the north, 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 115 

New Brunswick on the east, and from two to three hundred miles 
of sea-coast, which the enemy commanded on the south. She 
owned one ninth part of all the tonnage of the United States, and, 
at the commencement of the vv^ar, there were not two hundred reg:- 
ular troops in the State. Her citizens did not wait to be solicited, 
but voluntarily tendered their services to their country, and three 
regiments were immediately organized, by which her territory was 
defended at all points, until, in 1813, all the troops raised for the 
defence of Maine, even those in the garrisons, Avere, by order of 
the Secretary of War, marched to the Niagara frontier. The Brit- 
ish having a strong force in each of the adjacent provinces to the 
north and the east, and a powerful armament on the sea, were, by 
that withdrawal of the troops, tempted to annex the lower and 
unsettled parts of the country to their colony of New Brunswick ; 
and, with this view, took possession of Castine, in September, 
1814. It was immediately determined to compel the adversaiy 
to withdraw, by carrying the war into his own territory. An 
army of ten thousand men, commanded by a distinguished citizen 
of Maine, was to invade New Brunswick, at the opening of the 
Spring ; and such progress was actually made, and with such 
zeal and alacrity did the people offer their services, that it was 
well ascertained that the whole number of troops would be raised 
within the limits of Maine and New Hampshire. The peace alone 
prevented the plan from being carried into execution ; and I hazard 
nothing in saying that, had the invasion been made, with such 
troops and such a commander, it would have been no second edi- 
tion of the campaigns of Hampton and Wilkinson. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said of the late war as dero- 
gating from the character of New England, I boldly ask, from 
what part of the country was it sustained with more efficient aid ? 
The gentleman tells us that money was withheld by a combina- 
tion of all the banking interest. One bank, sir, in the town of 
Boston alone, advanced the Government two millions of dol- 
lars ; and a single individual there a million more. The large 
amount loaned in the town of Salem, my friend from Massachu- 
setts now before me, (Mr. Silsbee,) whose ample fortune was 
entrusted to his country, can well attest. Sir, without the hard 
money — not the depreciated paper of broken banks — but the gold 
and silver which the citizens of New England caused to be paid 
into the Treasury from loans and the customs, your tottering 



116 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

credit must have fallen completely prostrate. And when clouds 
of despair lowered around you, and thick darkness enveloped your 
whole horizon, it Avas the gleams of glory from the ocean that dis- 
pelled the gloom, and illumined yoiu- path. That sun of glory 
arose in the East, and was lighted up by the Mariners of New 
England. You manned not a ship — you fired not a gun upon 
the lakes or upon the ocean, without the aid of the sons of New 
England ; and, in every battle upon the water, they poured out 
their blood in your defence. Upon land, too, their achievements 
were unequalled. Those who, having voluntarily tendered their 
services, were not permitted to defend their own homes, but 
marched to the frontiers of New York, constituted the regiment 
which well earned their expressive appellation of the bloody ninth, 
which stood alone against twice their force of i'ritish veterans, 
whilst half their own numbers had fallen upon the field ! They 
composed, too, the twenty-first regiment, which, at the battle of 
Niagara, by a desperate effort, in face of a blazing battery of 
deadly artillery, took the eminence which it commanded, and, 
meeting the foe man to man, repulsed and defeated him in suc- 
cessive onsets, and destroyed forever the boasted invincibility of 
the British bayonet. 

I would not have inquired what service South Carolina ren- 
dered during the war, had not the Senator from Missouri, in 
contrast with the East, made it a theme of praise and gratitude. 
When he introduced that topic, I was, indeed, somewhat curious 
to hear his enumeration of her exploits — and what were they ? 
Why, sir, that she sent her able and eloquent representatives to 
raise their voices in Congress. I trust that I fully appreciate 
their services, and that no one is moie cordially disposed to award 
them their full meas\ire of honor or gratitude. But I believe 
that the enemy would rather that we should have sent thousands 
of our most eloquent orators, to make their most eloquent 
speeches upon the floor of Congress, than to have met the single 
crew of that frigate which compelled the haughty and boastful 
Dacres to strike the flag of the Guerriere, and bow in submission 
to Isaac Hull. 

When the gentleman from South Carolina spoke in terms of 
commehdation of the merits and exertions of the republicans 
of the East, I was relieved and gratified. I supposed that he was 
willing to embrace, within that description, all who cherished 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 117 

true republican priuciples. But what was my astonishment, 
when he afterwards narrowed down his description, and confined 
his approbation to the few who united with him in the last Presi- 
dential election! Pie tokl us that the "democracy of New Eng- 
land " had always acted with the South — not only in the war of 
1812, but "in the civil contest of 1828," that it was then, as 
now, the ally of the South. This is, indeed, restricting our 
republicanism to very narrow limits — by the test of the electoral 
votes, to one fiftieth, and, by any other just criterion, to a small 
part only of the people. And thus, veterans of the republican 
party, those who sustained it in the darkest times, and have been 
ever true to their principles and to their country, who were its 
fearless and unwavering' champions, during embargoes, non-inter- 
course, and war, are now denied the name of republican, because 
they have dared to think for themselves, as to the qualification of 
a candidate for the Presidency, and bowed not down to the idol 
which others had set up. While, on the other hand, some of 
their most violent opponents, even aiders and abettors of the 
Hartford Convention, those ultra federalists, who opposed Mr. 
Adams, because of their unforgiving spirit, could never forget 
that he had once left their party, are received into full commun- 
ion, and cordially embraced by those who claim to be, by 
their own appointment, exclusive guardians of pure, primitive, 
unspotted democracy. 

The gentleman seems to have no other criterion of republi- 
canism, than adhesion to the South. Not the assertion of princi- 
ples, but devotion to Southern men. He told us, in so many 
words, that " the South had made New England," and it seems 
that, in his view, those only are of the true faith, who will bow 
down and worship this new creator. 

A very considerable portion of the speech of the Senator from 
Missouri was devoted to a comparison of the liberality of the 
North and the South, and he yesterday reminded us that, in 
the last election of President, there was but one vote in all New 
England for the Southern and Western candidate. 

Since he has chosen himself to introduce this test of sectional 
disinterestedness and magnanimity, let us bestow upon it a 
moment's attention. The whole number of votes which have 
been given for President in the electoral colleges, since the organ- 
ization of this government, has been two thousand and nineteen, 



118 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

of which 7iine only have been throMn, in a,ll the States south of 
the Potomac, for candidates residing north of that river, viz : one 
in Virginia, and one in North Carolina, in 179G ; four in North 
Carolina, in 1800 ; and one in Illinois, and two in Louisiana, in 
1824. While, during the same period, the States north of that 
river have given no less than seven hundred and nineteen votes 
for Presidential candidates living south of it. They have sup- 
ported Southern men three times unanimously ; at another time, 
with but a single dissenting vote ; in another instance, with but 
six ; and again, by a large majority. 

Upon these facts, I make no comment. 

The subject of slavery, incidentally touched by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) has been taken up and dwelt 
upon with great zeal, by those who followed him. It is a topic 
of such delicacy and difficulty, that I have always abstained from 
referring to it in debate ; and others from the North have, very 
generally, practised the same forbearance. 

I have deeply lamented that the sensitiveness of the slavehold- 
ing States should have been so often operated upon, out of this 
House, to produce unkind feelings, and unjust accusations, against 
their brethren. We have been told that it can always be made a 
bond of union in political warfare, and I much fear that the cry 
of hostile designs to their rights and property has been too often 
rung as an alarum to rally the whole slaveholding population in 
one array against those w^ho have never indulged an unfriendly 
thought. 

The people in the North do undoubtedly condemn slavery in 
the abbtract, and deeply deplore its existence in our country ; but 
they have not the remotest intention of disturbing this domestic 
relation, by thrusting themselves between the master and his 
bondmen. They know that, as the institution actually exists, 
they have no right, by the Constitution, to attempt to overturn it ; 
that to do so might dissolve the Union ; and that their interfer- 
ence, so far from relieving the slave from bondage, would probably 
aggravate his condition and rivet his chains more firmly. 

The gentleman has spoken of the in-cjiidiccs of the East. Sir, 
what he has thus denominated, are disinterested, pure, benevo- 
lent, and elevated yrinciyles. They wish, indeed, that their 
friends of the South could be relieved from what they deem a 
great moral and political evil ; but they are aware that the remedy 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 119 

is to be found and applied by those only among whom the evil 
exists, and have no disposition to touch it with inexperienced 
hands. 

Had the gentleman been content to express, in general terms, 
his approbation of involuntary servitude, and his exultation at its 
existence, I should have made no reply. He might even have 
insisted, as he did, that it added to the physical strength of a 
country, although I cannot well understand how withdrawing 
one-half of the whole population from the contest can strengthen 
the common arm in the hour of battle, and although such was 
not the opinion even of Southern statesmen after the experience 
of the revolution. Mr. Madison, in 1788, said, " What parts of 
the United States are most likely to need protection? The weak 
parts, which are the Southern States." And again, " It was said, 
and I believe with truth, that every part of America does not 
stand in equal need of protection. It was observed that the 
Northern States are most competent to their own security." 

But the gentleman has chosen to make this very topic the 
ground of a comparison, degrading to the republicanism of the 
East. He asserted that, from the possession of slaves, there had 
always been a greater love of liberty in the South than in the 
North ; and rested his assertion upon the authority of Mr. Burke. 
What kind of love of liberty is it which, Burke says, is generated 
and fostered by the institution of slavery ? He says that, to 
slaveholders, liberty is not only an enjoyment, but " a rank and 
privilege," and subsequently speaks of their " haughtiness of 
domination." 

Who does not perceive that this love of liberty is but the love 
of rank, of power, of absolute and uncontrolled dominion, and 
that, too, over their fellow-men, extorting from them the most 
abject submission ? It is the same love of liberty which is 
possessed by the privileged classes — the aristocracy, in other 
countries — an attachment to their own immunities, to arbitrary 
control and domination over others, and impatient of all restraint 
upon themselves. 

Let it be remembered that this delineation is not mine, but was 
furnished by the Senator from South Carolina. If I had imputed 
such sentiments to any portion of our own country, I should have 
felt myself obnoxious to the charge of unkindness. I trust. Sir, 
that he has done liimself and his friends injustice ; and that such 



120 FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 

is not the democracy of the South. It was not that of Mr. Jef- 
ferson, as is shown not only hy the proposition against invohintary 
servitude, which he made to the Old Congress, but by the general 
tenor of all his political writing. 

It is not the democracy of New England. We have heard, in 
this debate, of the oligarchy and aristocracy of New England ; and 
they are so often spoken of elsewhere as terras of general applica- 
tion, that I fear very erroneous opinions are prevalent as to the 
character and institutions of that people. 

I thank the Senator from South Carolina for reminding us of 
the oppression Avhich drove our forefathers from their native land ; 
for I delight to recur to the patriarchal founders of Massachu- 
setts—the Puritans — who, for the enjoyment of civil and relig- 
ious liberty, left their country, friends, civilization, plenty and 
security, for exile in a wilderness, across a world of waters, exposed 
to every suffering and every danger ; those indomitable spirits 
who would yield to no usurped dominion, but resolved to live free 
or cease to live. "When they landed upon the Eock of Plymouth, 
it was with the Bible in their hands, and its precepts in their 
hearts, and they laid deep the foundations of a Christian Com- 
monwealth. From the sacred volume they imbibed the true spirit 
of all our institutions ; the native equality of the human race — 
formed of the same materials — foshioned by the same hand — ani- 
mated by the same breath — and destined to the same grave. Do 
unto others as ye would that they should do unto you was, to 
them, the impressive command by which Heaven itself placed all 
mankind upon the common level of moral right and mutual obli- 
gation, and declared that " man was not made the property of 
man." 

They acted upon the principles which they professed, and con- 
stituted one society of equals and brethren. As their numbers 
increased and spread over a gieater area, it became impracticable 
for all to unite in transacting the public business at one place, and 
they therefore formed teriitorial districts, of convenient extent, 
by some called townshii:)s, but there denominated towns, which 
continued to be multiplied as population advanced, These toAvns 
were then, and are still, throughout New England, pure democ- 
racies, in which the whole people, in their original sovereign char- 
acter, assemble at one place, to order their own business in their 
own way, each freeman having an equal voice, and every man 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 121 

being free. In these primary assemblies, they choose their own 
agents, prescribe their duties, call them to account, and censure 
or approve, as their conduct may seem to deserve. They raise 
money, direct its expenditure, and order and control all measures 
of general concernment. 

Here, too, are supported our Free Schools, an institution unri- 
valled in the history of human education, by which children of all 
classes are brought together upon the basis of perfect equality, and 
receive instruction from the same source, without distinction or 
partiality. The funds for the support of these schools are annu- 
ally raised by vote, in the primary assemblies of the towns, where 
the poor man, having perhaps a dozen children, but wholly desti- 
tute of property, has an equal voice in determining the amount, 
and its appropriation, with him who has hundreds of thousands, 
and is childless. The sums thus ordered are directly assessed 
upon property. The annual amount, in my own State, is not less 
than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. A system more 
perfectly democratic in its immediate character and ultimate tend- 
encies, was never devised by man. It is upon this broad founda- 
tion of universal instruction that all our political institutions rest. 
It sustains, too, our Colleges, our Academies, our Hospitals, Asy- 
lums, and all those benignant charities, whose streams extend to 
the uttermost regions of the earth. 

I thank the gentleman, too, for his reference to the American 
revolution. He told us that the South had no ships nor com- 
mer::e to cause them to resist Great Britain. Sir, that resistance 
was not for ships and commerce merely, but against the princi- 
ple, of taxation without representation, which extended equally to 
all the colonies. It was the claim of the Imperial Parliament to 
" bind us in all cases whatsoever ; " and, if we had not resisted, 
they would have bound our infant giant limbs in fetters. And 
Massachusetts has the enviable distinction, — that glory of which 
nothing can deprive her to the end of time, — of having been the 
first to make this resistance, alone and unaided, in defiance of the 
whole power of the British Empire. Lord North himself declared, 
on the floor of Parliament, that Massachusetts alone was to blame ; 
that, but for the evil example of her violent opposition, the obnox- 
ious tea would have been everywhere else quietly received ; and 
that she should be visited with exemplary vengeance. And 
Colonel Barre, who has been sometimes called the friend of Amer- 



122 FOOT'S KESOLUTION. 

ica, declared that her conduct, as the prime mover of all the dis- 
turbances, had been so reprehensible, that the Boston Port Bill, 
which was intended to reduce thousands to starvation, was a meas- 
ure of mercy ; — while another member thundered forth against 
Massachusetts the anathema which was not long since uttered in 
the other end of this Capital against New England, " Del en da est 
Carthago." 

The true character of a people is best ascertained by their con- 
duct at those times when — rising against oppression, and absolved 
from the restraints of law — they are a law unto themselves. With 
this view, look at the destruction of the tea by what has been 
called a " Boston mob." They assembled in the night, went on 
board the ships, hoisted the chests upon deck, and poured their 
contents into the sea, with the order and regularity of an ordinary 
business operation. No other article of property was touched, not 
an act of violence committed ; but, when the work was done, the 
multitude who had assembled to witness the scene, quietly and 
peaceably retired to. th:-ir respective homes. 

Since gentlemen are fond of introducing their reminiscences, 
they will indulge me in another exemplification of the conduct of 
an educated, moral, fearless, republican people. After what has 
been denominated the Boston Massacre, an event calculated to 
inflame the multitude to the highest degree of excitement, when, 
as the historian tells us, they seemed utterly regardless of per- 
sonal danger, and immovable by the bayonets of the soldiery — did 
they resort to tumult and outrage, to conflagration and bloodshed ? 
No. They assembled in town meeting, chose a committee of cit- 
izens to require of the royal Governor the removal of the troops. 
When they came into his presence, he was surrounded by his 
high ofliccrs, civil and military, and spoke in such lordly language 
as became the viceroy of a king. " They must go," was the firm 
and laconic reply. Seeing this spirit, and lowering his tone, he 
attempted to compromise, by offering to send away one regiment. 
The Cliairman, the venerable Samuel Adams, fixing upon him 
his piercing eye, and stretching forth his tremulous hand, exclaimed, 
" All or none, sir." The mock majesty of artificial creation shrunk 
before the native dignity of true republicanism. The mandate was 
obeyed. The troops were removed. 

Such were the people who constituted the militia that fought 
the battles of Lexington, of Bunker's Hill, and of Bennington. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION. * 123 

" This night," said a Grecian commander to his soldiers, " we 
shall sup with Pluto," — a speech which has been thought worthy 
to be handed down to us through many centiu'ies. How immeas- 
urably more elevated and touching was the simple address of the 
gallant Stark to the husbands and fathers, his neighbors and 
frieuds, whom he commanded at Bennington ! — " There are the 
enemy : we conquer them, or this night Mary Stark is a widow." 

I shall not attempt to enumerate the worthies or the achieve- 
ments of New England. Time, indeed, would fail me to delin- 
eate her character, or speak of her services. They stand out in 
brilliant colors upon every page of your history. She may be 
followed through every section of our country by the blood and 
exploits of her sons — to your own native South Carolina, where 
Green and Sullivan fought, " and Scammel fell," — to the West, 
where their bones rest on the battle-grounds of St. Clair's defeat, 
and of Harrison's victory. Every valley is vocal with the voice 
of her children. Her blood swells every vein of this great repub- 
lic. Her fame is reflected from the whole bright surface of this 
wide-spread and mighty nation. 

I glory in such a blessed parentage, and in the brotherhood of 
her hardy, educated, enlightened, virtuous, generous, brave, repub- 
lican population. With deep-felt gratitude, I reverently thank God 
that, of all places upon his earth, he gave me my birth in 
the land, and among the descendants, of the Puritan Pilgrims of 
New England. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION— SECOND SPEECH. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION— SECOND SPEECH, 

IN THE SENATE, MAY 21, 1830. 



The preceding Speech on Foot's Kesolution, was made on the third of 
February, 1830. On the twenty-first of May, Mr. Benton most unex- 
pectedly called up that Resolution, reopened the debate, and assailed 
certain parts of the foregoing speech. As soon as he sat down, Mr. 
Sprague replied as follows. 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION— SECOND SPEECH. 



Mr. Sprague said, that, after this subject had slumbered for two 
months upon the table, under a mass of other matter, nothing 
could have been more unexpected than this, its sudden revival. 
The gentleman from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) at this late hour, 
in almost the expiring moments of the session, has undertaken to 
point out certain supposed mistakes of mine, in relation to the 
navigation of the Mississippi. I shall not, sir, protract this 
untimely discussion further than to re-affirm my former state- 
ments. The errors upon this subject are on the side of the gen- 
tleman, not mine. I said nothing that is not fully sustained by 
the highest authority, by the speeches of Mr. Madison, Mr. Mon- 
roe, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Grayson, in the Virginia Convention, and 
the Journals of the Continental Congress. I then had the books 
in my hand, and read from them to the Senate, 

I stated, sir, that the delegation from Virginia, (not the South 
generally, but the delegates from that State,) in the year 1786, 
proposed to enter into permanent stipulations with Spain, by 
which we should relinquish, forever, all right of transporting any 
articles up^ the Mississippi from its mouth ; and New Orleans 
should be made an entrepot, at which our pi'oduce, carried down 
the river, should be landed, and pay duties to the Spanish crown ; 
and a consul of the United States there should be responsible for 
every violation of these engagements ! Now, sir, compare these 
renunciations and sacrifices, to endure through all time, with the 
mere temporary relinquishment, for twenty-five or thirty years, 
and let the candid and intelligent declare which would have been 



130 FOOT'S RESOLUl'IOX— SECOND SPEECH. 

most wise, and have best secured the tiue and permanent interests 
and safety of the Western country. 

Notwithstanding the gentleman's assertion, that the reverse of 
this was the fact, I maintain that such a proposition was made by 
the delegates from Virginia, in 1786, and it will be found in the 
fourth vohime of the Secret Journals of Congress, published in 
18;n, pp. lOo and 106.* 

Let it be remembered that my statement was, that such a prop- 
osition proceeded from the A'irgiuia delegation ; not, as the gen- 
tleman's remarks indicate, from the South generally. 

But I proceed, in addition, to say : There was a time when 
the Southern States, and Virginia with the rest, were disposed to 
make an absolute and perfect surrender of all right to the Maters 
of the Mississippi, but the Northern and Eastern States opposed it. 
It was at the period of their greatest distress, and for the purpose 
of obtaining succor from Spain. For this I produced the speeches 
of ^Ir. ]Madison and Mr. Monroe, and might have referred to 
other distinguished names ; but their authority is too strong to be 
shaken, and too elevated to be reached by that gentleman. 



• The Virf^inia proposition was made August 29th, 1786, and is to ])e found 
extending from page S7 to page lOS of the fourth voUune of the Secret Journals. 
In pages 10-5 and 106, is the following Resolution : 

" Resolve(f, That the Charge des Affaires of the United States at the Court of 
Sjxiin he instructed to assin-e his Catholic Majesty of the high regard the United 
States entertain for his fiicndshi]), and of tiieir earnest desire to cultivate and 
preserve always the hest understanding l)etween His Majesty and the sjiid States; 
that, as an evidence of this disposition, they are willing to settle their interfering 
claims respecting the Mississipjii, and the houndaries ujjon the following ])rin- 
ciples : 1st. That New Orleans he made an entrejiot, for the reception of the 
bona fide ])roduce of the United St^ites hrought dowji the river Missis,si])])i hy the 
citizens of the said States; such j)roduce to he landed at said port for exportation. 
That the said citizens he at liherty to return with their hoats em])ty, or w!th pas- 
sengers only, u|) the Mississippi, to the ])laccs from whence they came. 2nd. 
That such produce aforesaid shall pay there, or the merchants exporting it give 
hond for the ])aymcnt, within six months from the date, of a duty not exceed- 
ing per cent, ml valorim, at the time of ex|)ortation, to the crown of Spain. 
That such produce aforesaid shall l)e exported thence, in S])anish, American, or 
French vessels : tiiose in the bottoms of Spain, under the regulatioi s of Spain ; 
and those in the bottoms of America and France, under the regidations of the two 
countries, by treaty or otlierwise. That im])nrts of every kind and country to the 
said port, and uj) the said river, in American and French bottoms, he prohibited; 
and that all vessels engaged in lrans])ortation of said exports shall come to such 
ports in l)allast only. That the United States shall be authorized to appoint a 
consul, to reside at New Orleans, who shall be responsible for any violation of 
these stipulations by the citizens of the United States." 



FOOT'S RESOLUTION— SECOND SPEECH. 131 

Indeed, he has not even adverted to their unequivocal and decisive 
testimony.* 

The gentleman has chosen this moment to introduce, for the 
first time, into this debate, the subject of the removal of the 
Indians, upon which he has dilated in most extraordinary terms. 
Having presented my views in relation to it, at the proper time, I 
have no inclination now to obtrude upon the Senate any further 
remarks ; nor is there any necessity for doing so. The whole 
cause of the alarum we have just heard, is the statement, by one 
newspajDer editor, of what another newspaper editor had said ; 
from which the gentleman's prolific imagination has conjured up 

" Gorgons, Hydras, and Chimeras dire." 

[Here the debate on Mr. Foot's resolution was finally brought 
to a close.] 

* Extract from Mr. Madison's Speech in the Virginia Convention : 

"It was soon perceived, after the commencement of the war with Britain, that, 
among the various objects that would affect the happiness of the people of Amer- 
ica, the navigation of the Mississippi was one. Throughout the whole history of 
foreign negotiation, great stress was laid on its preservation. In the time of our 
greatest distresses, and particularly when the Southern States were the scene of 
war, the Southern States cast their eyes around to be reheved from their misfor- 
tune. It Avas supposed that assistance might be obtained for the relinquishment 
of that navigation. It was thought that, for so substantial a consideration, Spain 
might be induced to afford decisive succor. It was opposed by the Northern and 
Eastern States. They were sensible that it might be dangerous to surrender this 
important right, particularly to the inhabitants of the Western country. But so 
it was, that the Southern States were for it, and the Eastern States opposed it." 

And Mr. ^lonroe, after speaking of the constant efforts of Virginia to preserve 
this navigation, says : 

" There was a time, it is true, when even this State, in some measure, aban- 
doned the object, by authorizing this cession to the Court of Spain." 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 



The question of the right of the Indian Tribes within the Territorial 
limits of the United States, and our duties to them, attracted much atten- 
tion, and excited great interest during the first administration of General 
Jackson. The most prominent case was that of the Cherokees, within the 
limits of Georgia. With that Tribe, the United States had several 
Treaties in full force, guarantying to them, in the most solemn manner, 
the protection of the United States, against encroachments from any other 
State or people. Under this protection, the Cherokees had advanced in 
civilization, beyond, perhaps, any other Tribe. They had cultivated their 
lands, established a regular Government, erected valuable builuings, and 
engaged in the useful arts. During the administration of John Quincy 
Adams, the State of Georgia manifested a determination, not only to 
encroach upon the Cherokees, but absolutely to destroy their national 
existence, and to take from them, by force, all their lands, with all their 
buildings and improvements. The Cherokees appealed to the Govern- 
ment of the United States, for that protection which we had so solemnly 
and repeatedly promised to afford. Mr. Adams promptly interposed in 
their behalf, and arrested the uplifted arm of Georgia. When General 
Jackson came into power, a different policy was adopted, and a determi- 
nation was taken, to permit Georgia to nullify the laws and treaties of the 
United States, by the exercise of absolute dominion over the Indians 
within her geographical limits. It was a part of this policy to compel 
the Indians to leavo their homes and remove to a wilderness. To this 
end, a Bill was reported to the Senate, by the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
providing for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in the United 
States, and their removal beyond the Mississippi. This title but faintly 
indicates the character of the measure. No option was to be left to the 
Indians, whether to exchange or not ; the only alternative to be presented, 
was, " removal " or " destruction." The President having, early in his 
administration, entered into this system of measures, in defiance of both 
the Natural and Conventional Rights of the Indians, pursued it with 
unyielding energy. 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 



In the Senate, April 16tli and 17th, 1830. 

The Bill pro\ading for an Exchange of Lands with the Indians residing 
in the United States, and their Removal beyond the Mississippi, and a 
proposed Amendment thereto, being under consideration, Mr. Sprague 
spoke as follows: 

Mr. President : The gentleman who has just resumed his 
seat (Mr. Forsyth) has indulged in a wide range of remark in 
defence of his State against imputations which he supposed to 
have been elsewhere cast upon her. This course may have been 
very proper in him ; I fully appreciate the motive which induced 
it. But I have no occasion to follow him. I have no wish to 
derogate in the least from the character of Georgia, but rather that 
it should be as elevated as her most devoted sons can desire. I 
shall speak of her so far only as may seem necessary to the free 
discussion of the subject before us. 

This bill and amendment, and the discussion which they have 
produced, involve the question of the rights and duties of the 
United States with respect to the Indian tribes generally, but more 
especially the Cherokees. With that people, we have not less 
than fifteen treaties, — the first made in the year 1785, and the 
last in 1819. 

By several of these treaties, we have unequivocally guarantied 
to them that they shall forever enjoy : 

1st. Their separate existence, as a political community. 



138 REMOV.U. OF THE INDIANS. 

2d. Undisturbed possession and full enjoyment of their lands within 
certain boundaries, which are duly defined and fullj described. 

3d. The protection of the United States against all interference with, 
or encroachnicuts upon, their rights by any people, State or nation. 

For these promises, on our part, we received ample consid- 
eration : 

By the restoration and establishing of peace. 
By large cessions of territory. 

By the promise, on their part, to treat with no other State or nation ; 
and other important stipulations. 

These treaties were made with all the forms and solemnities 
which could give them force and efficacy ; by Commissioners 
duly appointed with full power ; ratified by the Senate ; confirmed 
bv the President ; and announced to the world, by his proc- 
lamation, as the binding compact of the nation, and the supreme 
law of the land. 

The Cherokees noAv come to us, and say that their rights are in 
danger of invasion from the States of Georgia and Alabama ; and 
they ask if we will extend to them the protection we have piom- 
ised, and pci form the engagements we have made. This is the 
question which they distinctly propound, and Mhich we must 
unequivocally answer ; and we arc now discussing what our 
response shall be. 

There is a broad line of distinction between the claims of 
Georgia, and those of Alabama, and Mississippi, which seems here- 
tofore to have been unobserved, but which T shall endeavor to 
keep in view. 

Let us first inquire what our duties are with respect to Georgia ; 
for, if her pretensions are unfounded, those of Alabama and !Mis- 
sissippi fall of course. 

It is not necessary to determine whether the Indians have just 
giounds for their apprehensions or not, because the question is 
whether, if the rights secured to them by our treaties should, at 
some future day, be invaded, we will perform our engagements. 

But have they not some cause for their present alarm ? In 
December, 1827, a Committee of the Legislature of Georgia made 
a report, accompanied by sundry resolutions, which were accepted 
by both branches, and the resolutions also received the approval 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 139 

of the Governor. In the- report, we find the following language 
respecting the territory of the Cherokees : " The lands in ques- 
tion belong to Georgia ; she must and she will have them." And 
in the Resolutions, the following : 

" Resolved, That all the lands, appropriated and unappropriated, which 
lie within the conventional limits of Georgia, belong to her absolutely; 
that the title is in her ; that the Indians are tenants at her will ; that she 
may, at any time she pleases, determine that tenancy by taking possession 
of the premises, and Georgia has the right to extend her own authority 
and laws over the whole territory." 

" Resolved, That Georgia entertains for the General Government so 
high a regard, and is so solicitous to do no act that can disturb or tend to 
disturb the public tranquillity, that she will not attempt to enforce her 
rights by violence, until all other means of redress fail." 

" Resolved, That, to avoid a catastrophe which none would more sin- 
cerely deplore than ourselves, we make this solemn appeal to the United 
States," etc. 

It is thus asserted as the right, and avowed as the determina- 
tion, of Georgia, to exercise absolute power over the Cherokees, 
and to take their land at all hazards, — even by violence, if other 
means should fail. 

The gentleman from that State (Mr. Forsyth) observed, in the 
commencement of his speech, that he felt himself bound in con- 
science to relieve his fiiend from New Jersey from all apprehen- 
sions of a violation of the faith of the nation, by demonstrating 
that the claims of Georgia were supported by treaties. And he 
proceeded to do so in language so strong, and tones so triumphant, 
as to make an evident impression upon members of the Senate. 
Let us deliberately examine his argument. 

The first treaty referred to M^as that of Galphiuton, in 1785, by 
which certain concessions were made to Georgia. But that was 
by the Creeks, and by them only, and had no relation to the Cher- 
okees. []Mr. Forsyth explained. He remarked upon that treaty 
in answer to the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Frelinghuysen,) 
and not as bearing upon the rights of the Cherokees. Mr. Sprague 
resumed.] He was glad to receive the gentleman's explanation ; 
it precluded the necessity of any further remark upon that topic. 

The treaty next cited was that of De Witt's Corner, A. D. 1777, 
between South Carolina, Georgia, and the Cherokees, by which 
the latter acknowledge that a portion of their country, extending 



140 REMOVAL OF THE IKDIANS. 

as fill- as the Unacaye Mountain, had been conquered, and they 
made a cession of the same, by defined boundaries, to South Car- 
olina, and to her only. The conquered and ceded territory lies 
wholly within that State ; and it is not now, and has not been for 
at least one generation, cither claimed or occupied by the Indians. 
What right can that confer on Georgia to lands now owned and 
possessed by the Cherokees ? 

The next position was, that the right of his State w^as derived 
under the Ninth Article of the Treaty of Hopewell, made between 
the United States and the Cherokees, in November, 1785, by 
which they gave to the United States the right of managing all 
their affairs. To this Georgia was no party. But the gentleman 
contends that the United States transferred all their power and 
claims, under the treaty, to that State, by virtue of the compact 
of 1802 ; and that we now cannot interfere with her pretensions. 
The clause in the compact, which is relied upon, is this : " The 
United States cede whatever claim, right or title they may have 
to the jurisdiction or soil of any lands lying within the limits of 
Georgia." 

Does this relinquishment of the right of the United States to 
the soil and jurisdiction of the lands purport to transfer a preexist- 
ing treaty with the Indians ? Was it so intended ? 

And, if it had been, is the power which the treaty confers to 
legislate for their benefit, in its nature transferable ? The Article 
is in these words : 

" For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the pre- 
vention of injuries and oppression on the part of the citizens 
or Indians, the United States, in Congress assembled, shall have 
the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the 
Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they 
thiidv pioper." The poAver given is strictly personal and fidu- 
ciary, to be exercised according to our judgment upon future 
events, and for their benefit. Can even a guardian transfer his 
rights and duties at pleasure ? By the Constitution — the funda- 
mental compact — Georgia has given to the United States the right 
to legislate, in certain cases, over lier citizens for their benefit, for 
example, to organize, ai'm, discipline and call forth her militia. 
Can the United States transfer this right to South Carolina, or any 
other Sovereign ? 

The express words of the article require this right to be exer- 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 141 

cised by the United States, " in Congress assembled." Can we, 
without the consent of the other party, strike out these words, 
and insert — " the Legislature of Georgia " ? 

Again, in order to see that this power is properly exercised, the 
Thirteenth Article secures to the Cherokees, " the right to send a 
deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress." 
Shall he come here to watch over the legislation at Milledgeville ? 

But if this power was, in its nature, transferable, it must be so 
subject to the restrictions and limitations in the treaty contained, 
among which are the following : 

1st. That the Cherokees shall continue to exist as a distinct political 
comraunity, under the protection of the United States, 

2d. That they shall enjoy the undisturbed possession of their lands. 

3d. That the power to manage " their affairs " shall be exercised for 
the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuries 
and oppressions. 

Did this give to the United States, the right to drive them 
from all their lands ? Or to destroy the Cherokee nation, to strike 
it out of existence, and, instead of managing for their " benefit," to 
annihilate " their affairs," as a body politic ? Or could we convey 
a greater right than we ourselves possessed ? 

But this is not all. The gentleman passed over, in utter silence, 
a most important event which intervened between the treaty of 
Hopewell and the compact of 1802. It is the treaty of Holsten, 
made in 1791, by which the United States again promised the 
Cherokees to protect them in their rights as a nation ; and the 
Seventh Article holds the following language : " The United 
States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation all their lands 
not hereby ceded." If any right was transferred to Georgia, it 
would be such only as existed at the time, and subject of course 
to the stipulations of that preexisting treaty. 

There is still another view of this subject. Are we not bound to 
see that our treaties are fulfilled ? The Indians say that their very 
existence was threatened, and inquire of us whether we will per- 
form our solemn promise of protection. What shall we answer ? 
That we have conveyed that promise to another ! — that we have 
transferred our obligation to Georgia ! — have given her a license 
to violate our treaties ! May they not reply, that the very purpose 
for which they purchased our guaranty, and the protection of the 



U2 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

strong arm of our Government was to secure them against the 
encroachments of their white neighbors in that State ? 

The compact of 1802, Avhich has been so much insisted upon, 
was made between the United States and Georgia. The Cherokees 
were not ])arties, nor even assented to it. Of course, it could not 
impair their rights, or confer upon others any claim against them. 
If I, Mr. President, should promise the gentleman that I would 
obtain your farm and convey it to him, would that divest your 
title, or authorize eltlier of us to wrest it from you by force ? The 
compact itself expressly recognized " the Indian title," and the 
United States were to extinguish it only when it could be done 
" peaceably " and on " reasonable terms." 

The gentleman having, as he supposed, fully sustained the treaty 
claims of Georgia, by the arguments upon which I have remarked, 
triumphantly exclaimed, " I will have my bond — I will have my 
pound of flesh." 

A most unfortunate allusion, sir ; and one which I should not 
have been unkind enough to make. lie mIU have his pound of 
quivering flesh taken, from nearest the heart of the li\iiig man ! 
But he must take it without one drop of blood. 

-" A)-, there 's the rub ; " 



For, in tlie cutting of that ])ound of flesh, 

What liutnan l)lood shall How, " iraist give us pause." 

The fiend-like Shylock himself could not take the penalty of his 
bond because " no jot of blood " was given. And none is given 
here, but the express contrary — " peaceably " — " peaceably " — 
and " upon reasonable terms " too, is the emphatic language. But 
against whom does the gentleman make his claim — the Indians ? 
Does he hohl their bond ? No — they hold ours — they now 
present it to us and demand its performance — and, " till he can 
rail the seal from off that bond," he cannot absolve us from its 
obligations. He declares that he will have the terms of his com- 
pact fulfilled to " the twentieth part of one poor scruple," and 
to the division of a hair. So be it ; and let the Indians too have 
their guarantied rights maintained with equal scrupulo^ity. 

Tlie Honorable Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
(Mr. White,) conceded that the United States had lepeatedly 
pledged their failli to the Cherokees to interfere for their protection, 
but contended that we ought not to perform these stipulations of 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 143 

our treaties because of the conflicting claims of Georgia. He laid 
clown this proposition, that, if the United States had come into en- 
gagements inconsistent with each other, so that it was impossible 
to keep both, that which was prior, in point of time, should be 
specifically performed, and ample compensation be made for the 
breach of the other. 

To this position I freely assent ; and upon this basis will rest 
the argument. 

It is incumbent, then, upon the Honorable Chairman to show, in 
the first place, that our obligations to Georgia are incompatible with 
our treaties ; and, in the next place, that they are of prior date. 
This, he, and two gentlemen who followed him in the debate, 
(Messrs. M'Kinley and Forsyth,) have attempted to do. Their 
argument is, that before the revolution, Great Britain had jurisdic- 
tion over the aborigines, and the sole right of treating with them, 
and that this power was wrested from her by conquest during the 
war, and forever abandoned by the treaty of peace in 1783. 

I would first observe that, if it AA%as obtained by conquest, it 
belonged to the conquerors. And who Avere the conquerors ? 
The United States ; who were also a party to the treaty of peace. 
Upon this ground it v/as, that New .Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 
and other States so strongly insisted, that the Crown lands, which 
had been acquired by the common arm, and at the common expense, 
belonged of right to the common fund. Their demand to a great 
extent succeeded. The several States yielded to their pretensions 
by successive cessions ; Virginia magnanimously taking the lead. 

But, Mr. President, I shall not dwell upon this ; for I mean, as 
far as possible, to avoid all debatable ground. 

Concede, then, for the present, that when Georgia became inde- 
pendent, in 1776, she at once succeeded to all the preexisting 
rights of Great Britain over the unmeasured forests within her 
chartered limits. "What was that right ? Gentlemen say it was 
the right of discovery. Discovery, sir, confers no claim or right 
against the natives — the persons dis^covered — but only as between 
discoverers. It is said that the rights derived from this source 
we I e established and defined in Europe, upon the first discovery 
of this country. True ; but it was by the mutual understanding 
and agreement of the nations of that continent only, in order to 
regulate their conduct among themselves. To prevent conflict 
and collision, it was tacitly agreed that the Sovereign, who should 



U-1 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

find a country, theretofore unlcnown, should have the exclusive 
right to the benefits of the discovery, and should be permitted 
without interference to conduct towards the aboriginal inhabitants 
according to his conscience, and his ability. He had, therefore, as 
against discovering nations Avho had assented to the arrangement, 
a conventional right to wage war upon and conquer the natives, and 
subject them to liis sway. It is this right to which it is contended 
that Georgia succeeded upon the declaration of Independence. 
Let it be so considered ; and that, in the war which she should wage 
to subjugate the Indians, no other State or nation could rightfully 
interfere. But the people attacked had a right to resist. They 
surely were under no obligation to acquiesce in the proposed 
subjugation. Suppose, then, they should happen to be too strong 
for their assailants ; that they should roll back the tide of war — 
the hunters should be hunted — that those who came to conquer 
should be in danger of being conquered ; and, in such emergency, 
the people of Georgia should call upon another State, Virginia, for 
example, for protection and defence. Georgia would then have 
waived her conventional right to exclude all others from her limits, 
and ^^irginia would, at her request, become a party to the war. 
Would not Virginia then have the right to make peace for the 
security of her own citizens, and must she not be bound by its 
terms ? Was France bound by her treaty of alliance with us 
during the revolution ? Yet her interference was without the 
consent of Great Britain, the discoverer. Are the United States 
now bound by their treaties with the States of South America ? 

But, fifrther, what if Georgia, in order to induce her neighbor 
to come in for her defence, had expressly agreed, beforehand, 
that Virginia sliould have the sole power of conducting the war, 
and concluding the peace ? Would not both States be bound by 
the treaty of peace thereupon made by Virginia ? To proceed 
one steji furthei', suppose that this arrangement between the two 
States, instead of being occasional, should be established by a per- 
manent compact ; and that, in order to obtain the aid and protec- 
tion of Virginia, at all times, against the attacks of the Indians* 
Georgia should agree that she never would herself provoke such 
attacks by making war upon them, and that, if it should arise, her 
more powerful ally should have the entire management of the 
war, and the exclusive right of agreeing upon the terms of peace 
and making ti!e treaty. Would not such terms be obligatory? 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 145 

Now, sir, sucii a compact was actually made by Georgia with 
Virginia and eleven other States, by the Articles of Confederation. 

By the Third Article, the United States are bound to assist the 
several States, " against all force offered to, or attacks made upon 
them, or any of them." And by the Ninth Article, the United 
States have " the sole and exclusive right and power of determin- 
ing on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the Sixth 
Article," and also of " entering into treaties." 

Here is the express grant. What answer can be given to it ? 
What reason can be assigned, why each State should not be bound 
by the stipulations of a treaty of peace ? Will it be said we could 
not have the relations of war and peace with the Indian tribes ? 
Ask the relatives of Braddock and Butler, of Wayne, Harmer, 
and St. Clair, if Indians can wage war ? Consult the crimsoned 
pages of your history and they will answer you. Nay, to banish 
such a suggestion forever, that same Ninth Article of Confedera- 
tion expressly declares, that, by war, it means to include contests 
with Indians ; for, by reference, it incorporates into it the Sixth 
Article, which is in these words : 

" Article Sixth. No State shall engage in any war without the 
consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, unless such 
State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received cer- 
tain advice of a resolution formed by some nation of Indians to 
invade such State, and the danger is so imminent, as not to admit 
of a delay, till the United States, in Congress assembled, can be 
consulted." Here is also an unequivocal relinquishment, by each 
State, of the right to make war upon the natives. 

During the revolution, war actually existed between the United 
States and the Cherokees ; it continued to rage after the acknowl- 
edgment of our independence by Great Britain. Georgia needed 
our aid, and received it. The Indians were then powerful and 
terrific. The United States were desirous of peace ; they sought 
it, and it was established in 1785, by the treaty of Hopewell, which 
has been already referred to. It secured to the Cherokees, their 
previous right to exist,' as a community, upon the territory in their 
previous possession. Such a treaty would have been obligatory 
upon any State, if the Articles of Confederation had never existed ; 
but by that compact a right was expressly given by Georgia her- 
self to make it, and the United States were in duty bound to 
exercise that power. 

10 



146 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

And now I ask what prior incompatible obligations to Georgia 
absolve us from its stipulations, or render it impossible to fulfil 
them i 

Such was the power, and such the practice, of the Confederation 
up to the time of the formation of our present Constitution, in 
September, 1787. No longer previous than the preceding month, 
we find a committee of Congress, in an able and elaborate report, 
declaring that the United States cannot interfere in behalf of a 
State against a tribe of Indians, " but on the principle that Con- 
gress shall have the sole direction of the war, and the settling of 
all the terms of peace with such Indian tribe." And this lan- 
guage was addressed particularly to Georgia by name, and with 
respect to the Indians within her limits. This was in August. 

The Constitution was formed in the following September. The 
Sixth Article declares, that " treaties made, or which shall be 
made, under the authority of the United States shall be the 
supreme law of the land " — '•' any thing in the Constitution or 
laws of any State to the contraiy notwithstanding." This Avas an 
express confirmation of the treaty of Hopewell ; which had been 
made in November, 1785, less than two years before, and was 
then in full force. 

The State of Georgia, with full knowledge that it had been so 
made, and that it was considered, by the United States, to be valid 
and obligatory, voluntarily adopted the Constitution, thereby her- 
self most solemnly affirming and establishing that treaty ; and, 
whatever may have been said before, never, since that time, until 
recently, when the present controversy arose, has she, in any man- 
ner, denied its validity, or objected to its being carried into effect. 

Such is the argument in support of the treaty of Hopewell. I 
shall leave it by adducing but one other proof of its validity, in 
the opinion of General Washington, and the Congress of 1778, 
and their determination to enforce it with scrupulous fidelity. It 
is the proclamation of September 1, 1778, which declares it to be 
" the firm determination of Congress to protect the said Chero- 
kees in their rights, according to the true intent and meaning of 
the said treaty ; " and a resolution was adopted to hold in readi- 
ness a sufficient number of troops to enforce that declaration. 

Under our present Constitution, many treaties have been regu- 
larly made with the Cherokees. The first was at Holsten, in 1791. 
Tlie reasons which have been adduced in sui)port of the power to 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 147 

make the treaty of Hopewell are applicable to this with increased 
force. 

The Constitution was formed because the Confederation was 
too weak to answer the purposes of the Union. It substituted a 
Government in place of a mere confederacy, conferring upon it 
additional powers, and further limiting those of the individual 
States. By the articles of Confederation, the power of Congress 
to regulate the trade and manage affairs with the Indians was 
subject to a proviso, that " the legislative right of any State, within 
its own limits, should not be infringed." This restriction is the 
only ground upon which doubts could ever have been suggested 
of the power of the Confederation to enter into treaty stipulations ; 
it gave no countenance, however, to such suggestions, because it 
was a limitation upon another grant of power, distinct from that 
of establishing peace and making treaties. But even this restric- 
tion is omitted in the Constitution, and Congress are empowered 
to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes in unqualified terms. 

The Constitution vests, in the United States, the sole and 
exclusive power of making war and concluding peace. It ex- 
pressly provides, " that no State shall engage in war," or " enter 
into any treaty." Here is an unequivocal relinquishment of the 
right of Georgia to make war upon or treat with the Indians. 
And what is the right which it is said devolved upon her as suc- 
cessor to the sovereignty of Great Britain ? The right of a dis- 
coverer ; that is, a right, as against others, and without their 
interposition, to attack, and by force subdue the natives ; to make 
war for the purpose of conquest. But Georgia covenants, by our 
fundamental compact, not to engage in war for that or any other 
purpose ; to attack no nation or political community. 

The United States have the sole power of making peace ; this 
can be done only by treaty. At Hopewell, in 1785, we made a 
treaty of peace. Open war had raged between the United States 
and the Cherokees up to that time. They had been the allies of 
Great Britain, but never had been ours, or in any manner con- 
tracted with us. Was not that treaty rightfully made and 
obligatory ? 

At Holsten, in 1791, we made a treaty of peace and friendship. 
It is so denominated on the face of it. It was the termination of an 
actually existing war ; of this, there is no doubt. The Chairman 
of the Committee of Indian Affairs, in his written opinion of 1824, 



148 REMOVAL OF THE INDL\NS. 

states the fiict, that Avar Avas raging. The gentleman from 
Georgia, says that his State appUed to the United States for aid 
and protection in that war. The report of the Committee of 
Indian Affairs now before us, declares that the Cherokees Avaged 
war against the citizens of the United States. At Holstcn, Ave 
then undeniably made a treaty of peace to terminate an existing 
war. The authority Avas express and exclusiA'e. Are not the 
United States bound — will they abide by it ? 

The First Article is — " There shall be perpetual peace and friendship 
between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the 
individuals composing the whole Cherokee nation of Indians." 

" Article Seventh — The United States solemnly guaranty to the Cher- 
okee nation, all their lands not hereby ceded." 

"Article Fifteenth — All animosities for past grievances shall hence- 
forth cease, and the contracting parties will carry the foregoing treaty 
into full execution with all good faith and sincerity." 

The question noAv is, shall Ave carry these articles into effect 
Avith any good faith or sincerity ? 

Will it be pretended that the United States might make peace, 
but had no authority to insert such stipulations as those I have 
quoted. Sir, the substance of these articles are of the essence of 
a treaty of peace. In every contract, each party recognizes the 
separate existence of the other ; and a treaty of peace — not a 
truce, not an armistice, not a temporary cessation of hostilities, but 
a treaty of peace, in its nature a permanent, enduring contract, 
must bind each party to respect the existence of the other, and 
never to assail or attempt its destruction — must obligate each also 
to permit the other to continue tliat existence upon its oAvn terri- 
tory without attack or violence. To attempt to expel them by 
force, or subjugate or destroy their separate being, is a violation 
of the compact of peace, and a reneAval of the Avar. In termi- 
nating hostilities, therefore, by their undoubted constitutional 
poAvcr, the United States not only rightfully, but of necessity, 
embraced such terms as these. Arc they not obligatory ? I am 
not contending, Mr. President, that the United States can cede 
aAvay a part of any State to a foreign nation, as France or Great 
Britain, for example. That question I do not mean to touch ; it 
is wholly unnecessary. I only say that they may agree that the 
other party may continue to exist upon the lands Avhich they have 
always occupied ; may retain that wliich has ever been their OAvn. 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 149 

But this is not all. The Constitution proceeds still further, 
and gives to the United States the general right to make treaties, 
not merely of peace, but all others. This power is not only 
clearly and positively conferred on the Union, but expressly 
inhibited to its several members. It has been repeatedly and 
continually exercised in relation to the Indian tribes within the 
United States, and that by the acquiescence and assent of Georgia 
herself. 

I know it is said Georgia protested ; and this has been repeated, 
reiterated, and insisted upon in every variety of form, as applica- 
ble to both the treaties, and all the questions which have been 
presented. Let us examine : 

The first alleged protest was in February, 178d, prior to the 
treaty of Holsten. It is the report of a Committee, accepted by 
the House of Representatives only. The objections urged therein 
apply exclusively to the treaty of Hopewell, and must have rested 
only on the ground of the reservation, before mentioned, in one of 
the Articles of Confederation, and w^hich was omitted in the Con- 
stitution. 

The next j)rotest was in February, 1797. It makes no objec- 
tion whatever to the treaty of Holsten, and thereby impliedly 
approves and assents to it. It protests against two treaties with 
the Creeks, made at New York and Colerain, and the intercourse 
law of the United States. The grounds of objection insisted on, 
arc, that the intercourse law places the military above the civil 
authority, and prohibits pursuit and retaliation for Indian out- 
rages. That the Creeks, by the treaty of Galphinton, in 1785, 
confirmed by a subsequent treaty at Shoulderbone, had submitted 
themselves to Georgia, and become members of the State, and 
ceded to her a tract of land which had been actually organized 
into a county by the name of Tallassee. And the State protests 
"because the treaty of New York, in 1790, after the said cession 
being acted on, constitutionally erected and laid out into a coimty, 
and the lands appropriated, did sever, cut, and lop off the land so 
ceded before the power of the Federal Constitution existed, and 
ex post facto declared they were vested in, and belonging to, the 
Creek Nation of Indians ; and because the said intercourse law 
and treaty of Colerain have confirmed the same." 

Their complaint is, substantially, that the United States had 
taken from Georgia, lands which had " been duly ceded, fairly 



150 REMOVAL OF THE IXDL\NS. 

paid for, and legally and constitutionally laid out into a county." 
In conclusion, they " most feivently solicit a revision of the inter- 
course law, and the New York and Colerain treaties, and requir- 
ing a confirmation of the county of Tallassee to the State." And, 
" they most earnestly solicit the assistance of the I'nited States to 
attain the cession of land the treaty of Colerain, they trust, was 
intended to establish." These protestations insist that the treaties 
of Galphinton and Sliouldcrbone were invalid by reason of the 
before named reservation in the Articles of Confederation ; but no- 
where deny, and by implication admit, the general right of the 
United States to make treaties with the Indian tribes, and guaran- 
tee to them the possession of their lands. 

They do not breathe a whisper of objection to the treaty of 
Holsten, of 1791, or to any of the powers involved in making it, 
but acquiesce therein. 

In February, 1796, by an act of her Legislature, to which I 
shall hereafter recur, she expressly declared that the United States 
had the right to make treaties with the Indians ; a right which 
they have continually exercised, and which she has never ques- 
tioned, until this recent controversy arose. Not less than four- 
teen treaties have been entered into with this same Cherokee 
Nation since the adoption of the Constitution : in 1791, 1792, and 
1794, by General Washington ; in 1798, by Mr. Adams ; one in 
1804, two in 1805, one in 1806, and one in 1807, by Mr. Jeffer- 
son ; three in 1816, by Mr. Madison : one in 1817, by Mr. Monroe 
— General Jackson being the negotiator ; and one in 1819, by the 
same President — Mr. Calhoun being the negotiator. By more 
than half these treaties, large cessions of land were obtained, 
boundaries cVfined, and the remaining territory, and the protection 
of the United States again and again guaranteed to the Indians. 

Shall Georgia now be permitted to deny their validity ? If a 
man, seeing another in the act of making a deed of his land to a 
third person, .shall stand by in silence, until the conveyance is 
completed, and the grantee has parted with his money, paid the 
consideration, would any Chancellor, that ever sat in a Court of 
Equity, permit that man to reclaim his property, and thus consum- 
mate a fraud on the fair purchaser ? But, suppose that he shall 
not only thus witness the conveyance perfected, and the money 
paid, but himself receive the consideration ; can he, Avith the 
fruits of the contract in his pocket, lay his hand upon the prop- 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 151 

erty, and wrest it from the innocent grantee ? Georgia not only 
acquiesced, but actually received all the lands ceded by the Ind- 
ians, and for which they obtained our promise of protection. I 
have in my hand, some of her laws disposing of the acquisitions. 

The title of one is, '•' An act to dispose of and distribute the 
cession of land obtained from the Creek and Cherokee nations of 
Indians by the United States, in the several treaties of August 10, 
1814, July 8, 1817, and January 22, 1818." 

And of another, — " An act to dispose of the territory lately 
acquired of the Cherokee Indians by a treaty held by the Honor- 
able John C. Calhoun, at the city of Washington, on the 
twenty-seventh day of February, 1819." There are others of 
similar' tenor. 

And now, retaining these acquisitions, holding the proceeds of 
these treaties in her hands, she declares that they are invalid ; thus at 
the same moment binding the Indians by their stipulations, and 
denying them the benefit of ours. 

She has not only thus declared the right of the United States to 
make treaties, and assented to them when made, but has repeat- 
edly urged that they should be entered into for the purpose of 
obtaining further acquisitions for her benefit ; and, even as late as 
the year 1825, contended that the treaty of the Indian Springs 
with the Creeks, was obligatory, and should be carried into effect. 

And it was not until the Indians had firmly refused to assent to 
further cessions, and it was perceived that no more lands could be 
acquired by negotiation, that the doctrine arose which denies 
to the United States, their right to make these compacts. 

Mr. President : What have the Senate heard to obviate the 
force of the facts and arguments which I have adduced? What 
answers have been given ? I will advert to them all. 

And first, as to the acts and acquiescence of Georgia, we have 
the reply in the report of the Committee, that, as she protested 
against the treaty of Hopewell, made in 1785, " no inference can 
be drawn to her disadvantage, from her silence, or from anything 
she may have said in relation to any subsequent treaty, because in 
each of them a change was made, by which a portion of her terri- 
tory and jurisdiction was restored to her, and thus her condition 
rendered better," etc. Who does not perceive that, under this 
form of words of restoring what she never possessed, but 
which belonged to the Cherokees, before she had a being, the 



152 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

substantial, real cause of her assent is alleged to be tbe benefits 
which she received ! Yes, sir ; she did receive the fruits of these 
solemn contracts ; by the establishing of peace and additions to 
her territories, in 1791 ; by the cessions of 1798, 1804, 1805, 
1806, 1807, 1816, 1817, and 1819. And shall we be told that 
because it "svas for her interest to be silent, because she was 
receiving the consideration of the compacts, therefore she now, 
after twenty years' assent, is under no obligation to abide by them ? 

The Honorable Chairman, in his opening speech, assigned 
several reasons why the United States could not constitutionally 
form such treaties. The first was, that " the creature could not 
possess power to destroy its creator." This expression is calcu- 
lated to mislead the judgment, because it refers the mind at once 
to the relation, in which we frail and feeble mortals stand to our 
Omnipotent Maker ; and it would seem to be just as true to say, 
the creature cannot diminish the power of its Creator. The gen- 
tleman applies it to the General Government, as the work of the 
several States. Is it true that it cannot, that it does not, take 
any power from its several members ? The argument is, that if 
the Union can secure to the Indians, any portion of their territory 
by treaty, they may cede away a whole State. This would, 
indeed, as the gentleman must admit, be a gross and palpable 
abuse of the authority. Ilis reasoning, then, must be, that the 
United States cannot possess any power which, by perversion, 
may be exerted to the destruction of one of its members. Can 
they, then, make any treaty with a foreign nation ? If so, there is 
the same danger of wrongfully transferring the State. Can they 
make war ? It would be the readiest means of lopping oflf a 
member by leaving it defenceless. Can they oi'ganize, discipline, 
and call forth the mihtia, and control the whole physical strength ? 
Sir, these are powers expressly inserted in the Constitution, and 
they are not to be argued out of it, by apprehensions of extrava- 
gant possible abuses. 

The General Government M'as formed by the States — and tlic 
creature, says the gentleman, cannot have power to destroy any 
one of its creators. The State Governments, sir, were formed by 
individuals. If any of these should be guilty of a capital offence, 
might he not say, in the language of the Chairman, you cannot 
take my life — it is impossible, in the nature of things, that the 
creature can have power to destroy one of his creators ? 



EEMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 153 

It is argued that tlie existence of an Indian community, within 
the chartered limits of a State, is inconsistent with " a Hepublican 
form of Government/' as guarantied, by the Constitution, to eveiy 
State. 

This argument has been much reHed on. It was advanced by 
the Secretary of War, repeated by the Committee, and reiterated 
in the speech of the Chairman. If this be so, Mr. President, a 
most unexpected result follows ; it is — that Georgia has never yet 
had a Republican form of Government — for there has never been a 
moment, when such tribes did not exist within her borders. At 
the time of the adoption of the Constitution, this same Cherokee 
nation was much more numerous, and held sway over a much 
wider region than at the present time. Nay, the Constitution itself 
confirms the preexisting treaty of Hopewell, which recognized and 
guarantied the separate existence of the tribe ; and which is now 
contended to be incompatible with that fudamental compact. Is 
the existence of a body politic, which the Legislature cannot 
destroy, necessarily incompatible with a Republican form of 
Government ? How is it with Dartmouth College, in New Hamp- 
shire, or the chartered cities of other States ? 

Another proposition derived from the same elevated source, and 
urged with equal vehemence here, is, that these treaties cannot be 
valid, because the Constitution declares that " no neiv State shall 
be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, 
without the consent of the Legislature " thereof. 

Sir, no one proposes to create a new State, but to continue an 
old tribe, or State, if you so please to denominate it. It is to keep 
faith with a political community more ancient than Georgia her- 
self ; it is to preserve, not to form anew. Here again, I would 
observe, that this nation of Cherokees was as much a State at the 
time of the adoption of the Constitution as now, and had much 
greater power, and more extensive dominion ; and that the treaty 
of Hopewell, which the argument insists, formed a new State since 
the Constitution, and in violation thereof, was made two years 
before its adoption, and was confirmed and sanctioned by it. 

We are next told that the Constitution recognized the right of 
the respective State Legislatures to pass their laws over, and 
annihilate these communities, by that clause in the first article, 
which provides that an enumeration of inhabitants as a basis for 
representation shall be made, " excluding Indians not taxed." 



154 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

This provision undoubtedly implies that there could be indi- 
\ddual Indians subject to taxation, and therefore to be counted ; it 
also expressly deckires that there might be those within a State, 
" not taxed." 

There may have been, nay, there were, in some of the States, 
individual natives voluntarly residing within the white settlements 
separate from any tribe, and freely subjecting themselves to the 
local laws. There were those, too, whose nation, as a body, had 
disappeared ; and because these persons had, of their own accord, 
thus sought the State Jurisdiction, does it follow that it could be 
extended over Indian nations, who had always resisted it, and 
with whom, at the moment this clause was written, and the Con- 
stitution formed, the United States had a treaty guarantying them 
against such taxation, and every other exercise of State authority 
over them ? By what imaginable process could these words, 
" Indians not taxed," produce the magical effect of annulling the 
treaty of Hopewell, then existing in full force ? 

Let us substitute the word aliens, for Indians. The clause 
would then exclude ''aliens not taxed." Will it be contended 
that foreigners existing as a nation, with Mhom we had treaties, 
as such, would be subject to the laws of a State ? AVould it not 
apply exclusively to the aliens, who had separated themselves 
fi'om their nation, and mingled with our citizens I 

As a last resort, and to me, it seems a desperate one, it has 
been earnestly contended by the gentlemen from Tennessee, 
Alabama, and Georgia, (Messrs. White, McKinley, and Forsyth,) 
that we cannot constitutionally make axy treaty, with any 
Indiiin nation within the United States — that the express power 
to make " treaties " does not embrace compacts or agreements 
with such communities. 

Wherever, sir, the relation of peace and war can exist, the 
United States must, of necessity, possess the right to make a treaty 
of peace. That tlus relation may exist with these native tribes, 
has never yet been doubted, and will not at this day be questioned. 
No one will have the assurance, in the face of all history, in defi- 
ance of wliat is known by the whole world, to declare that our 
contests with the aboriginal nations are on their part insurrections, 
rebellions sulyccting them to be tried and executed as traitors. 
The Secretary of War Avill not say so, for he told the Chcrokees, 
in April last, " Your people were at enmity with the United 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 155 

States, and waged a war upon onr frontier settlements ; a durable 
peace was not entered into with you until 1791." The Com- 
mittee and its Chairman, (Mr. White,) will not tell us so, for their 
report, accompanying this bill, declares, that the Cherokees waged 
" a war against the citizens of these States, prior to the treaty of 
Holsten, in 1791" — Rebellion! — by those who never owed 
allegiance, and with whom, ever since our national existence, we 
have either had open war, or subsisting treaties ! 

But, independent of this power of peace and war, why does 
not the general authority to make treaties embrace those with 
the Indians ? Gentlemen content themselves with a positive and 
earnest denial. 

The word treaties, say they, in the Constitution, does not mean 
compacts or contracts with Indian tribes. Why not ? Did not 
those who formed and adopted the Constitution so understand it ? 
To answer this question, we must ascertain how that word was 
used, and what were the ideas attached to it, at the time and ante- 
rior to its insertion in that instrument. This rule of construction 
is the foundation of all science. AVhen any term is used by 
an author it is understood to carry with it the ideas which he has 
previously affixed to it ; that he denotes by it what he always has 
done. Hence, in the science of law, when the student has ascer- 
tained what the writer means by the words fee simple, or larceny, 
if he subsequently finds tho^e words used by the same author, he 
attaches to them the same meaning. 

These contracts with aboriginal communities have been denom- 
inated treaties from the first settlement of this country. It has 
been their peculiar and appropriate name, without even an alias 
dictus. Great Britain made treaties with the Indians ; the several 
colonies formed many, and gave them the same appellation. The 
Continental Congress, from the time it first assembled, until it was 
merged in the present national Government, uniformly called them 
treaties. They did so in 1775, 1776, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1785, 
1786, 1787, 1788, and even to the day of the formation and adop- 
tion of the Constitution. We find them repeatedly and particularly 
mentioned in July, August and October, 1787 ; the Constitution 
being formed in September of the same year. 

Nor is this all. In the Articles of Confederation, power was 
given to make treaties. It had been repeatedly exercised in estab- 
lishing our relations with Indian tribes : particularly the Delaware, 



156 REMOVAL OF THE IXDLVNS. 

the Six Nations, the Cheiokccs, the Chocta-ws, the ChickasaMS, and 
the Shawnees ; and, on the first of September, 1778, Avas issued 
the proclamation of Congress and of General Washington to en- 
force the treaty of Hopewell. 

The word treaties, thus invariably known and used, and which 
had received a practical construction under the Confederation, was 
inserted by the same great men in the Constitution of the United 
States. Could any one doubt its meaning ? Did Georgia misun- 
derstand it ? She had herself made trentics with all the forms of 
negotiation, through commissioners fully empowered, in 1773, 
1783, and 1785 ; they were so denominated by her at the time, and 
ever afterwards. On the third of August, 1787, a motion was 
made by Mr. Few, delegate in Congress from Georgia, seconded by 
Mr. 131ount from North Carolina, to take measures to " explain 
and confirm all former treaties " with the Creek Indians. 

There is as much evidence that this word was intended to 
embrace conventions with such communities as the Creeks or 
Cherokecs, as those with transatlantic nations, such as France and 
Spain. 

Contemporary exposition has always been deemed of great force 
in settling even the most difficult questions of constitutional law. 
Practice and precedent too have often been considered as decisive 
authority. ]\Ir. Madison, who has, with so much justice, been 
denominated the great constitutional laAvyer of this country, 
declared, in a message to Congress, that the question, of the con- 
stitutionality of the Bank of the United States, had been so settled, 
by the sanction of the different departments of the Government, 
that it was no longer to be agitated ; and yet only one bank had 
then been chartered. If his argument had, in that instance, any 
force, it is here irresistible. 

From the organization of the Government, doM'n to this very 
session of Congress, the practice has been unbroken and invariable. 
We find thesc'treaties made in 1789, 17i)0, 1791, 1792, 1794, 
1795, n!)(), 1797, 1798, and almost, if not quite, every year 
since. 1 have counted no less than one hundred and twenty-four 
Indian treaties formed under the present Constitution, being more 
than three for each year. If authority and practice can settle any 
question, this is at an end. 

In 1790, General Washington delivered a speech to the Seneca 
Indians, some extracts from which I will now read : 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS, 157 

I, the President of the United States, by my own mouth, and by a written 
speech signed with my own hand, and sealed with the seal of the United 
States, speak to the Seneca nation. 

The General Government only has the power to treat with the Indian 
nations, and any treaty formed and held without its authority, will not be 
binding. 

Here then is the security for the remainder of your lands. No State 
nor person can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty held 
under the authority of the United States. The General Government will 
never consent to your being defrauded ; but it will protect you in all your 
just rights. 

Hear well, and let it be heard by every person in your nation, that the 
President of the United States declares, that the General Government con- 
siders itself bound to protect you in all the lands secured to you by the 
treaty of Fort Stanwix, the 22d of October, 1784, excepting such parts as 
you may since have fairly sold to persons properly authorized to purchase 
of you. 

Again : 

But your great object seems to be the security of your remaining lands, 
and I have therefore, upon this point, meant to be sufficiently strong and 
clear. 

That, in future, you cannot be defrauded of your lands. That you pos- 
sess the right to sell, and the right of refusing to sell your lands. 

That, therefore, the sale of your lands, in future, will depend entirely 
upon yourselves. 

But that when you may find it for your interest to sell any parts of your 
lands, the United States must be present by their Agent, and will be your 
security, that you shall not be defrauded in the bargain you shall make. 

You now know that all the lands secured to you by the Treaty of Fort 
Stanwix, excepting such parts as you may since have fairly sold, are yours, 
and that only your own acts can convey them away. Speak, therefore, 
your wishes on the subject of tilling the ground. The United States will 
be happy to afford you every assistance in the only business which will 
add to your numbers and happiness. 

The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements. 

Given at Philadelphia, 29th December, 1790. 

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 

By the President : 

Thomas Jefferson. 

By command of the President of the United States of America. 

H. Knox, Secretary for the Department of War. 

" The United States will be true and faithful to their engage- 



158 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

ments. " Such was the solemn declaration of the Father of his 
Country in the infancy of this Republic. — Heaven grant that his 
sacred promises may be kept, and his confident prediction verified. 
The question is now before us. No sophistry can evade, no inge- 
nuity can elude it. Will " the United States be true and faithful 
to their engagements, " or false and treacherous ? 

The Cherokees present this solemn interrogatory, and we must 
return a deliberate response. It seems almost as if their case had 
been formed for the purpose of determining whether it be possi- 
ble to bind this nation by its plighted faith. 

I have already referred to our repeated and reiterated engage- 
ments by the sages of the Revolution, in the Congress of 1785 ; 
by Washington and the constellation of brilliant names around 
him, in 1791, 1792, and 1794 ; by the elder Adams and his 
Cabinet in 1798 ; by Mr. Jefferson, in four successive treaties, in 
1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807 ; by Mr. Madison, in several formed 
in 1816 ; by Mr. Monroe, in 1817, General Jackson liimself, 
subscribing it with his own hand as commissioner ; and by another 
in 1819, to which Mr. Calhoun affixed his name, as negotiator. 
All these treaties were ratified by the Senate, and sanctioned by 
every department of the Government. 

In 1794, that greatest and best of men, whose name we profess 
so much to venerate, and which should be, of all others, the 
highest authority to this Senate and to the nation, delivered a 
speech to the Chiefs and Warriors of the Cherokee Nation, in 
which, speaking of the lands upon Cumberland, he says : " These 
have been confirmed by two treaties of Hopewell, in 1785, and 
Ilolsten, in 1791." Again — "The treaties which have been 
made cannot be altered. The boundaries which have been men- 
tioned must be marked and established, so that no dispute shall 
happen or any white people cross over it." 

In 1795, the Governor of Tennessee, upon which State it is 
now asserted these treaties are not obligatory, wrote a letter to 
President Washington, in order to " prevent infractions of them," 
by encroachment upon the lands of the Indians. And, as late as 
1824, the gentleman from Tennessee, who reported this bill, (Mr. 
White,) gave an able and elaborate opinion in writing, in which he 
strenuously asserts and maintains their validity and the rights of 
the Indians. He says, " the Cherokees are to be considered as a 
nation, a community, having a countiy distinctly mai'ked out, and 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 159 

set apart for their use ; that their interest is as permanent and 
fixed in it, as the pledge and the faith of the United States can 
make it ; inasmuch as they have solemnly guarantied it to them 
as a nation without aiiy limitation of time." With reference to 
the t)"eaty of Holsten, he says they are " to be viewed as a nation, 
possessing all the powers of other independent nations, which are 
not expressly, or by necessary implication, surrendered up by that 
treaty." And again, " They have not surrendered the power of 
making municipal regulations for their own internal government." 

But now that we, the United States, are called upon to " be 
true and faithful to these engagements," it is contended that they 
are not obligatory ; and in order to sustain that position, it is in- 
sisted that the Constitution gives no power to make treaties with 
Indian nations, within the United States, although every Presi- 
dent of the United States and the members of his Cabinet, every 
Administration, and all the great men by whom it was surrounded 
and sustained, have formed and establised such Indian treaties. 

Every Senate of the United States, and, I believe, every member 
of every Senate, have ratified and confirmed such Indian treaties. 
Every House of Kepresentatives of the United States, and, I believe, 
every member thereof, have affirmed and sanctioned them, by 
passing laws for their due execution, paying from year to year the 
annuities secured by them, and making appropriations to enable 
the President to hold others. At this very session, the Senate 
has ratified new treaties ; and, during the present month, we have 
made an appropriation to enable the President to form another, 
with the tribes in Indiana. While that bill was under discussion, 
an amendment was proposed, prohibiting the use of any part of 
the money therein granted, in secret presents to the Chiefs ; and it 
was insisted by the gentlemen from Tennessee, Louisiana, and 
Illinois, (Messrs. Grundy, Livingston and Kane,) that such a 
proviso, merely restricting the use of money, which Congress 
was granting, would trench upon the high, independent and con- 
stitutional power of the President in negotiating treaties. Nay, 
the second section of the bill now under consideration, provides 
for the removal of " any tribe or nation of Indians, now residing 
within the limits of any of the States or territories, and with which 
the United States have existing treaties," — and now Ave are told by 
the chairman, that such treaties cannot exist — that they are no 
treaties. 



160 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

It is in effect asserted, that every President, and every Senate, 
have been guilty of usurpation, in extending the treaty-making 
po"n'cr beyond its legitimate objects. For if these contracts are not 
treaties, ^vithin the true meaning of the Constitution, they could be 
made only by the authority of Congress. But the President and 
Senate alone — the treaty-making power — have always negotiated 
them, ratified them, and by proclamation announced them to the 
nation, as the supreme law of the land. Every State legislature, 
and the whole people, have heard these annunciations, and looked 
on, during all these proceedings, in silent acquiescence. 

Even in 1798, when all the acts of the General Government, 
and particularly those of the executive, were scrutinized with the 
utmost rigor, it was never suggested, even in Virginia, where the 
discussions were most animated, that there had, in this respect, 
been an irregularity. But now, upon the pressure of an exigency, 
it is discovered, for the first time, that all has been wrong. The 
present occasion has brought with it new and peculiar lights, by 
which gentlemen now perceive what was in the minds and inten- 
tions of the framers of the Constitution, better then they did them- 
selves. They were ignorant of their own work. The venerated 
fathers of the Republic, and all the high and honored names, who 
have presided over its destinies, have been involved in deep dark- 
ness, and wandered in gross error ! 

I have thus, Mr. President, endeavored to present my views 
with respect to the claims of the State of Georgia. Whether we 
regard original principles of international law, as applicable to the 
right of discovery — or the express powers conferred by the articles 
of Confederation — or the confirmation of preexisting treaties, by 
the adoption of the Constitution — or the authority vested by that 
instrument in the General Government, and the renunciation of 
powers by respective States — the invariable practice and usage of 
the Union, and the acts, acquiescence, and assent of Georgia her- 
self — it is manifest that we are bound to perform our engagements 
to the Indians, and are under no incompatible and paramount 
obligations to that State. 

Ihit let us now, for the sake of argument, make the violent suj)- 
position, that the pretensions of Georgia arc well founded, and 
that the United States cannot rightfully fulfil their stipulations as 
against her. In that case, the States of Alabama and IMississippi 
would stand on very different ground. Their claims have been 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 161 

mingled and blended with those of the elder sister, as if they were 
precisely the same, and hers have been put forward as the only 
subjects of discussion, when in truth there is a broad line of dis- 
tinction, which ought to be marked and remembered. For the 
sake of distinctness and brevity, I shall speak of Alabama alone. 

It is conceded, on all hands, as a fundamental proposition, that 
the United States are bound to fulfil their engagements to the 
Cherokees specifically, except when prevented by incompatible 
obligations, prior in point of time. 

Now, sir, the State of Alabama did not exist until the year 
1819, Avhen she voluntarily came into the Union after the fifteen 
ti'eaties with this nation had been previously established and pro- 
claimed as the supreme law of the land. 

But it is said that Alabama was formed from territory once 
belonging to Georgia, and succeeded to all her rights. Without 
stopping to examine the difficulties attending such a supposed 
transmission of a right to resist treaties, it is sufficient to say that, 
by the compact of 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States all 
her " right, title, and claim " " to the jurisdiction and soil " of 
all the territory now constituting Alabama and Mississippi. The 
whole right of Georgia, whatever it was, thus became vested in the 
General Government, and so remained nntil 1819 ; during which 
time not less than eight of these treaties were made. Who could 
then contest their validity ? Are our treaties valid with the nations 
in Florida, Arkansas and Michigan ? Can we enter into engage- 
ments with any tribe within the boundaries of the United States — 
even beyond the Rocky Mountains, or anywhere upon this conti- 
nent ? Can we make the solemn guarantee proposed by this bill ? 
If so, we are legally constrained by our promises to the Indians of 
Alabama made before the existence of that State. 

But this is not all. Still another insuperable difficulty presents 
itself to her claims to legislate over and destroy the Indian nations. 

The following article is a part of the fundamental law to which 
Alabama owes her being, and without which she cannot exist : 
" The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the 
Indians ; their lands and property shall never be taken from them 
without their consent ; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, 
they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful 
wars authorized by Congress ; but laws founded in justice and 
humanity shall, from time to time, be made for preventing wrongs 
11 



162 REMOVAL OF THE IXDIAXS. 

being done to them, and for prcsciving peace and friendship with 
them." This was originally a part of the Fourth Article of the 
Ordinance respecting the North Western Territory, and was by 
express reference incorporated into the First Article of the compact 
of 1802, and made a fundamental and perpetual condition in the 
Act of Congress Avhich provided for the admission of Alabama. 

What is the answer to all this ? We have it from the gentleman 
from Alabama, (Mr. ^McKiulcy.) " The compact of 1802," says 
he, " was unconstitutional ; Georgia could not transfer to the 
United States either soil or jurisdiction." 

If this be so, the first consequence is, that the dispute between 
that State and the General Government, respecting the ownership 
of the crown lands obtained by conquest, which that compact was 
supposed to have happily put to rest forever, by mutual and recip- 
rocal cessions — could never be settled ! 

In the next place — that the combined powers of the State and 
of the Union, cannot do that, under the Constitution, which the 
members, individually, might have done without the Constitution. 
It is an attribute of complete sovereignty to be able to convey and 
receive territory. It is insisted that this attribute, as between 
the States, is annihilated — although all powers not granted are 
reserved to the members. I will not say that such an effect could 
not be produced by the Constitution, but it is at least so extremely 
improbable, that those who contend for it, in any particular 
instance, should be required to show it clearly, which has not been 
done. 

It is insisted by the gentleman that no State can be subject to 
the restraining condition of the Ordinance referred to, because it is 
inconsistent with her constitutional equality with the other mcm- 
Tjers of the Union. 

That Ordinance was established in July, 1787. It declares that, 
" The following articles shall be considered as articles of compact, 
between the original States, and the people and States of said Ter- 
ritory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." 
Then succeeds an article embracing the clause before read, and 
which was incorporated into the compact of 1802. The Ordinance 
subsequently declares that " the said Territory, and the States, 
which may be fonned therein, shall forever remain a part of tins 
"Confederacy." 

This Ordinance and all its provisions w^as affirmed and estab- 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 163 

lished by the adoption of the Constitution, and thus that instru- 
ment itself contemplated that all the States, to be thereafter formed 
Northwest of the Ohio, should be forever subject to those condi- 
tions ; by v.'hich it is now contended, no one could evei be consti- 
tutionally restrained ! 

It is insisted, by the gentleman from Alabama, (Mv. M'Kinley,) 
that Georgia could not transfer soil and jurisdiction to the United 
States ; that the compact of 1802, attempting to do so, was uncon- 
stitutional and void ; and that the tract of country, which it was 
intended to convey, remained a part of that State until the year 
1819. 

If the gentleman's doctrine is correct, it remains so still ; she 
having never conveyed it. 

Another consequence would flow from this doctrine, which 
I should exceedingly deplore ; it is, sir, that Alabama is not a 
member of this Union ! By the Constitution, no new State can. 
be formed or admitted into the Union within the limits of an old 
one, without the consent of the latter. Now, sir, Georgia has 
never consented to the admission of Alabama, except by the trans- 
fer of soil and jurisdiction by virtue of the compact of 1802. If 
that conveyance was inoperative, no consent has been given. If 
that compact was absolutely void, as the gentleman contends, it 
is a legal nullity, and he can hold no rights under it. 

Congress, too, have never given their consent, except upon the 
basis of the binding efficacy of that compact, and upon the express 
condition that its requisitions should be the fundamental law of 
the new State. But, says the gentleman, Congress had no power 
to pass such a law. If so, the act respecting the admission of 
Alabama was unconstitutional and void, and neither created nor 
admitted any new State. 

The ingenious gentleman has reasoned so profoundly upon con- 
stitutional law that he has argued himself and his colleague out of 
their seats in this Senate ! Now, sir, against this, I most seriously 
protest — they cannot be spared — we need the aid of their talents 
and experience. 

How will the gentleman escape from the consequences which I 
have deduced ? Will he contend that the compact and the law 
were valid and invalid at the same time ? That they conferred 
rights but could not impose obligations upon his State ? Even if 
such an extraordinary position were assumed — how would it affect 



164 REMOVAL OF THE IXDIANS. 

the present question ? If he can infuse any degree of vitality into 
that which was dead before its birth, if he can make that compact 
efficacious as the consent of Georgia to Ahibama's becoming a 
State, wouhl it not also be effectual as her consent that the United 
States should exercise jurisdiction over the territory so far as to 
make treaties with the Indian tribes ? If then the gentleman will 
admit that Georgia assented to any thing, by virtue of that com- 
pact, she consented to the formation of these treaties, and thus 
they were valid by her authority before Alabama was brought into 
being. 

As a dernier resort, the gentleman insists that the true construc- 
tion of the language of the Ordinance gives all the right over the 
Indians, for which his State contends, because the latter clause 
requires that " laws " — " shall, from time to time, be made for pre- 
venting wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and 
friendship with them." 

That is, laws restraining the whites, our own citizens, from 
encroaching upon the natives, and thereby endangering the piiblic 
tranquillity : — If Elaine or New York should pass laws for " pre- 
venting wrongs being done to " the Canadians, " and for preserv- 
ing peace and friendship with them " — Avould that give jurisdic- 
tion over the British provinces ? But let us read the whole clause, 
the true construction of which confers this unlimited power. 

" The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the 
Indians ; " which means that we may violate all our engagements 
at pleasure ! — " their lands and property shall never be taken 
from them without their consent ; " — that is, both may be taken by 
violence against their utmost resistance ! — " in their property, 
lights, and liberty tliey sliall never be invaded or disturbed unless 
in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress." There shall be 
laws for " preventing wrongs being done to them, and for pre- 
serving peace and friendship "with them ; " — the true construction 
of all which is — that a State may make war upon them at pleas- 
ure, deprive them of their lands, and annihilate their nation ! To 
such arguments are gentlemen ol" great ability compelled to resort! 

The rights of the natives, both natural and conventional, have 
been strenuously denied. What right, it is asked, have the Indians 
to the lands they occupy ? I ask, in reply, what right ha^■e the 
English, or the French, the Spaniards or the Russians, to the 
countries they inhabit ? 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 165 

But it is insisted that the original claim of the natives has been 
divested by the superior right of discovery. 

I have already shown that this gives no ground of claim as 
against the discovered, that it is a mutual understanding or con- 
ventional arrangement entered into, by the nations of Europe, 
amongst themselves, to define and regulate their respective claims 
as discoverers in order to prevent interference and contests with 
each other, all agreeing that the sovereign who should first find a 
new country should be left without interference from them to deal 
with it and its inhabitants, according to his ability and his 
conscience. 

But, we are told, that grants from the ting are the highest title, 
and have always been relied upon as such. True — as against 
other grantees from the crown, or against the government itself; 
but not as to the natives. If such a title gives any just claim 
as against them, then they are bound to yield to it ; for to every 
right aj^pertains a corresponding obligation. 

Were the aborigines bound to yield to such pretensions ? Sup- 
pose that, more than two centuries ago, when in unbroken strength 
they held resistless sway over this whole western world, a royal 
patentee, with his handful of followers just landed on these shores, 
should have found himself in the midst of a powerful Indian 
nation — the council fire is lighted up, and sachems and warriors 
are assembled around it — he presents himself, and says to them — 

" This country is no longer yours. You must leave the forests 
where you hunt, and the valleys where you live. All the land 
which you can see from the highest mountain, is mine. It has 
been given me by the king of the white men across the waters. 
Here is his grant — how can you resist so fair a title ? " 

If they deigned any other reply than the war-whoop, their 
chief might say : 

" The Great Spirit, who causeth the trees to rise from the 
ground towards the heavens, and maketh the rivers to descend 
from the mountains to the valleys — who created the earth itself, 
and made both the red man and Avhite man to dwell thereon — gave 
this land to us and to our ancestors. You say you have a grant 
from your King beyond the waters ; we have a grant from the 
King of kings, who reigns in heaven — by this title our fathers 
have held it for uncounted generations, and by this title their 
sons will defend it." 



16G REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

It has been strenuously argued that the overflowing nations of 
Europe had a just cU\im to the occupancy of some portion of the 
vacant lands of the aborigines for their own subsistence. 

The excessive popuhition of China, and of IFolhind, have, at 
this day, the same ground of claim against the United States. 
May they, therefore, drive us even from our cities and villages, 
and take all our territory by force ? AVe permit them to come 
and possess if they submit to our laws, and pay us for the soil. 
The Indians have been more liberal, having ceded both soil and 
sovereignty to hundreds of millions of acres. The Cherokees 
have no more to spare ; they need the residue for themselves. 
Shall they be permitted to retain it ? That is now the question. 

To avoid, as for as possible, all ([uestionable ground, I at pres- 
ent contend only that the Indians have a right to exist as a com- 
munity, and to possess some spot of earth upon which to sustain 
that existence. That spot is their native land. If they have no 
claim there, they have no right anywhere. Georgia asserts that 
the lands belong to her — she must and she will have them — even 
by violence if other means fail. This is a declaration of right to 
drive the Cherokees from the foce of the earth ; for, if she is not 
bound to permit them to remain, no nation or people are bound 
to receive them. To that for which I now contend, the Indians 
possess not only a natural, but also a legal and conventional, right. 
These tAvo grounds of claim have been blended and confounded. 

The rights Avhich the United States have claimed with respect 
to the territory of the aborigines, have been two-fold ; preemptive 
and reversionary, a right to purchase to the exclusion of all others, 
and to succeed the natives, should they voluntarily leave the 
country, or become extinct. 

It "will at once be perceived that this is a right to exclude others 
from interference, but not to coerce the Indians. It leaves to 
them the perpetual, luidisturbed occupancy. They cannot indeed 
transfer their country to others, but this docs not impair their title, 
although it may diminish its value in the market. It still belongs 
to them and their heirs forever. If a State should, by law, 
prohibit its citizens from making sale of their lands without the 
assent of the Executive, would it destroy every man's title ? Nay, 
the laws do now prevent conveyances to aliens. The right claimed 
is merely to exclude all others from purchasing of the aborigines. 
It will be divested of much of its appearance of harshness toward 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 167 

them by recurring to its origin. It was the primitive agreement 
or mutual understanding between exploring nations, that which- 
ever should first find a new country, should alone possess the 
privilege of dealing with the natives ; and, upon this ground, the 
discoverer excluded others from becoming purchasers. He had 
the right of preemption. This agreement trenched not upon the 
title of the aborigines ; and, as to its affecting the value of their 
lands, by preventing competition in the purchase, there would 
have been no purchaser but for the discovery. 

There is no mystery in the international law of discovery. So 
far as it relates to this subject, it is the same as if five or six per- 
sons, being about to go in search of sugar lands in South America, 
should mutually engage that they would not interfere with each 
other in their purchases. Such agreement would do no wrong to 
the original owner. 

The reversionary claim, as it may be denominated, although in 
strictness that cannot revert to another, which always belonged to 
the present possessor, is the necessary consequence of the 
exclusion of others from purcbasing. It is merely a right of 
succession of lands of the Indians when they shall have become 
extinct, or have voluntarily abandoned them by emigration, as the 
property of individuals sometimes escheats to the government for 
the want of heirs. 

The right of the aborigines, to the perpetual and exclusive 
occupancy of all their lands, has been always recognized and 
affirmed by the United States. It was respected by Great Britain 
before the revolution ; as appears by the royal proclamation of 
1763, in which all persons are commanded " forthwith to remove 
themselves " from lands, " which, not having been ceded to or 
purchased by us, are still reserved to the said Indians : " and after 
reciting that individuals had practised fraud upon the natives, 
forbids private persons from making purchases, " to the end that 
the Indians may be convinced of our justice " and provides that 
if " the said Indians should be inclined to disclose of the said 
lands, the same shall be purchased only for us, in our name, at 
some public meeting or assembly of the said Indians, to be held 
for that purpose." 

That right was recognized by the Confederation ; as appears by 
the whole tenor of their proceedings ; particularly their treaties, by 
which they purchased a part and guarantied the remainder ; by 



168 REMOVAL OF THE IXDIAXS. 

the report of a Committee in August, 1787, which decL^rcs that 
the Indians have "just claims to all lands occupied by and not 
purchased of them," and the proclamation of Congress in Septem- 
ber 1788, which has been already referred to. 

That, under our present Constitution, the rights of the natives 
and the relation in "which they stand to the United States, are such 
as I have described ; is clearly manifested, by the spesch of 
President "Washington to the Senecas, in 1790, from which I have 
already presented some extracts, and by the following explicit and 
deliberate letter of Mr. Jefferson, Avritten to the Secretary of War, 
in 1791 ; " I am of opinion that Government should firmly maintain 
this ground, that the Indians have a right to the occuiDation of 
their lands, independent of the States within whose chartered lines 
they happen to be ; that, until they cede them by treaty, or other 
transactions equivalent to a treaty, no act of a State can give a right 
to such lands ; that neither under the present Constitution, nor the 
ancient Confederation, had any State or persons, a right to treat 
with the Indians, without the consent of the General Government ; 
that that consent has never been given to any treaty for the cession 
of the lands in question ; that the Government is determined to 
exert all its energy for the patronage and protection of the rights 
of the Indians, and the preservation of peace between the Ignited 
States and them ; and that, if any settlements are made on lands not 
ceded by them, without the previous consent of the United States, 
the government will think itself bound, not only to declare to the 
Indians that such settlements are without the authority cr protec- 
tion of the United States, but to remove them also by the public 
force." Also by the intercourse law of 1790 — forbidding all 
encroachments by citizens of the United States, upon the " territory 
belonging to any tribe or nation of Indians ; " by many other stat- 
utes, particularly that of March, 1805 — by all the treaties of pur- 
chase and cession — all the laws to carry them into effect and pay 
the consideration — and all the acts for enabling the executive to 
extinguish Indian titles." 

The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Forsyth,) has referred to 
the Corresjiondence at Ghent to sustain his denial of rights to the 
Indian tribes. He relied upon the views of the American commis- 
sioners in repelling the claims of the British. As it is sometimes 
more satisfactory to read for ourselves, than to take the construction 
of others, permit mo, sir, to present to you an extract from that 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 169 

correspondence : " Under this system, the Indians residing within 
the United States are so flir indej^endent that they live under their 
own customs, and not under the laws of the United States ; that 
their rights upon the lands where they inhabit, or hunt, are 
secured to them by boundaries defined in amicable treaties 
between the United States and themselves ; and, when these 
boundaries are varied, it is also by amicable and voluntary 
treaties, by which they receive from the United States ample com- 
pensation for every right they have to the lands ceded." " Such 
is the relation between them and the United States. That relation 
is not now created for the first time, nor did it originate with the 
treaty of Grenville." — And subsequently, " the treaty of Grenville 
was merely declaratory of the public law — on principles previously 
and universally recognized." 

To this, sir, was subscribed the names of Adams and Gallatin, 
of Clay, and Bayard, and Russell. 

The Gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. M'Kinley,) to show that 
the natives have no title to the soil, cited the case of Johnson and 
Mcintosh, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and reported in the Eighth of Wheaton. 

To see how precisely that case sustains my positions, let me 
read a few very short extracts from the opinion of the Court as 
delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, It declares that the right 
of the United States, or the several States, is " subject to the 
Indian right of occupancy." That " the original inhabitants are 
the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as a just 
claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their 
own discretion." And again, " it has never been contended that 
the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of possession 
has never been questioned." 

Georgia herself has recognized those established rights of the 
natives, and the relation they bear to the General Government. 

By a law, passed in 1796, respecting the vacant lands within 
her chartered limits, she held the following language : " The terri- 
tory therein mentioned is hereby declared to be the sole property 
of the State, subject only to the right of treaty of the United States 
to enable the State to purchase under its preemption right the 
Indian title to the same." A most pregnant act of legislation. 
It expressly admits " the Indian title " — that the claim of the State 
is only " to purchase " under its preemption " right " — that even 



170 IIEMOV.U. OF THE INDL\XS. 

this she couki not do, unless " enabled " by the United States — that 
the United States had " the right of treaty " "with the Indians ; 
and that the claims of Georgia Avere " subject to " that right. 

In the compact of 1802, she stipulated, by reference to an Article 
of the ordinance before mentioned, for the inviolability of the lands, 
property, rights and liberty of the Indians, upon the territory 
relinquished ; and recognized their just claim to lands, in that 
which was retained, by the Article -which binds the United States, 
" at their own expense," to extinguish the " Indian title " thereto 
as early as it could be done " peaceably and upon reasonable terms." 

The titles of the Acts which I read, and several others, speak 
of the lands therein disposed of as " acquired," *' obtained " from 
the " Creek and Cherokee nations," by the treaties held by the 
United States. 

Even the Act of December last contains a plenary admission that 
the lands in question Avcre never before subject to her jurisdiction. 
A part of the title is " to extend the laws of the State over " — " the 
territory now occupied by the Cherokees." The sixth section 
expressly extends the laws of the State over the same, and the 
inhabitants thereof. Sir, does not the legislation of every State, 
of itself, operate upon all the country within its jurisdiction? 
The laws of Georgia were not before limited to any parts of the 
State ; they wei'e general ; they covered the whole ; and are now 
extended over the residue ! 

AVe have heard a great deal, in this debate, of the rights of 
conquest ; and are told that it is always recognized as valid by the 
judicial tribunals. True, sir, by those of the conqueror. How 
can they do otherwise ? Suj^pose that Congress shoidd now 
declare a war for the sole purpose of wresting Canada from Great 
Britain, and should succeed ; could our owii courts question this 
exercise of political power, and refuse to sustain oiu" jurisdiction 
over the country, however ini(|uitous the acquisition? And if, in 
this (iovernment, where the political sovereign is under the 
restraints of the Constitution, the courts cannot interfere, how 
could they in Eurojie, where this doctrine had its origin ? There, 
the legislative and political powers are unlimited. Even in Eng- 
land, the Parliament is legally omnipotent ; and who ever heard 
of a judicial court undertaking to annul any of its enactments ? 
Whatever may be the acquiescence of other nations in the exer- 
cise of power by a conqueror, it is no ground of just claim as 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 171 

against tlie conquered. They, surely, are not bound to submit, 
if new means of resistance can be found. To give to conquest — 
to mere force, the name of right, is to sanction all the enormities 
of avarice and ambition. Alexander and Bonaparte are justified ! 
Britain has done no wrong in sweeping India with the hand of 
rapine, and holding fifty millions of people in thraldom ! All the 
cruelties of the Spaniards in South America ; the crimes of Pizarro 
and Cortez, tracking the fugitive natives in terror and dismay 
with bloodhounds, to the caves of the mountains, and stretching 
their wretched monarch upon burning coals to extort from him 
the secret of his treasures, are sanctified by the name of right ! 
This right of conquest, gentlemen contend, is the legitimate off- 
spring of the right of discovery. Sir, the pirates on the coast of 
Barbary and Barataria, exercise both. They find a ship alone on 
the ocean ; this is discovery. They capture her, and murder or 
enslave the crew ; this is conquest. Both these rights are thus 
combined and consummated, and their validity will not, I presume, 
be questioned either by the courts of Barataria, or other bands of 
similar conquerors. 

But even this miserable argument of conquest is not applicable 
to the Cherokees. They were not subjugated. The Southern 
Indians had sixteen thousand warriors with arms in their hands. 
They were powerful ; their trade was war ; they did not solicit 
peace. We sought for it, as appears by the resolutions of Con- 
gress, of May, 1783, and March, 1785. We obtained the treaty 
of Hopewell, in which gentlemen find the expressions, the " Uni- 
ted States give peace " to the Indians, and " allot boundaries ; " 
and, by a philological criticism upon the English terms which we 
used, they logically deduce the rights of conquest ! What did 
the unlettered Indian understand by those expressions, but that 
there Avas to be an end of war, and that his territory was to be 
sacred ? The treaty contains many reciprocal stipulations of the 
" contracting parties." Will it still be contended that we are not 
bound by them, because the other party was conquered — in other 
words, because we were the strongest ? If the United States 
made terms of peace, should they not abide by them ? If a 
besieged town capitulates, are not the articles of capitulation 
obligatory? When Bonaparte dictated treaties of peace in the 
capitals of the nations which he had overrun, was he not morally 
bound to observe them ? They, indeed, might complain that the 



172 REMOVAL OF THE IXDUNS. 

contract was made by constraint, when they were not free agents ; 
but who ever heard of the stronger party cLiiming to be absolved 
from his engagements, because the other was subject to his coer- 
cion? 

It has been repeatedly asked, why not leave the Indians to the 
legislation of the States ? I answer, because they protest against 
it, and they, alone, have the right to judge. They demand of us 
the protection which we solemnly promised. 

!Much has been said of their being untutored savages, as if that 
could dissolve our treaties ! No one pretends that they are less 
cultivated now than when those treaties were made. Indeed, it is 
certain that they have greatly advanced in civilization ; we see it 
in the very proofs introduced by the gentleman from Georgia to 
show their barbarism. He produced to the Senate a printed code 
of Cherokee laws, and a newspaper issued from a Cherokee press ! 
Is there another instance of such productions from any Indian 
nation ? I was surprised that, with all his scrutiny, he could find 
no more remnants of savage customs. I shall not dwell upon his 
selections from their laws. The first was, that, if a horse should 
be stolen, and the owner, finding the thief in possession, should 
immediately kill him, in the excess of passion, it should rest upon 
his own conscience. It is to be observed that the person slain 
must have been guilty ; and for such an offence life is now taken 
by the laws of England: But this provision, inserted in the Cher- 
okee code more than twenty years ago, has yielded to further 
light, and been since repealed. Time will not permit me to dwell 
upon their advances in the arts of civilized life. It is known to 
have been great. They till the ground, manufacture for them- 
selves, have workshops, a printing press, schools, churches, and a 
regularly organized Government. Indeed, the gentleman from 
Tennessee himself told us, that some individuals of that nation 
were qualified for a seat in this august assembly. 

"What danger, it is asked, have the Indians to apprehend from 
the laws of the State ? What danger ? Is it not here avowed 
that their presence is a nuisance, from which Georgia wishes to be 
relieved ? Has not her Legislature declared that she is deter- 
mined to have their lands at all hazards, even by violence, in the 
last resort ? And, if left to her unrestrained power, can it be 
doubted that she will find the means of carrying that determina- 
tion into effect ? If the laws heretofore enacted ai"e not sufficient, 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 173 

may not others be resorted to ? Let us, for a moment, look at the 
measures ah-eady adopted, and see if they have not some adapta- 
tion to the accompHshment of her wishes. 

By the Ninth Section of the Act of 1828, no Indian in the Creek 
or Cherokee nations can be a party or a witness in any suit to 
which a white man may be a party. It is said that this has been 
repealed by the statute of 1829. I think otherwise. The latter 
contains no repealing clause, nor any incompatible provisions. Both 
may well stand together, and both would be enforced according to 
the usual construction of statutes in iiari materia. It is true, that 
a part of the title of the act is, to repeal that ninth section of the 
former. This is easily accounted for. The act, as first reported 
by the committee, probably contained a repealing clause, which 
was stricken out by the more zealous majority ; the original title 
remaining unchanged. 

But suppose that only the law of 1829 is now in force. What 
is to be its effect ? All the laws, usages, and customs of the 
Cherokees are abrogated, and severe punishments denounced 
against those who shall presume to act under them. Their Gov- 
ernment is dissolved — their political existence is at an end — their 
nation is destroyed — it is resolved into its original elements. We 
know that their lands are not holden by individual OAvnershIp ; 
the title is in the nation. To annihilate the tribe, therefore, as a 
political community, is to destroy the owner ; and the State is 
then to take the whole by her claim of succession. By this 
statute, no Cherokee, or descendant of a Cherokee, can be a wit- 
ness against any white man, who does not reside within the 
** nation." This devotes their property to the cupidity of their 
neighbors ; it leaves them exposed to every outrage, Avhich lawless 
passions can inflict. Even robbery and murder may be commit- 
ted Avith impunity, at noonday, if not in the presence of such 
whites as will become prosecutors or witnesses. 

This, the gentleman from Georgia asserts, creates no new disa- 
bility ; that Indians are not competent to testify, by the common 
law, either in England or in this country. That I deny. They 
are good witnesses in both, and have been so, without question, 
ever since the case of the Gentoo, in the time of Lord Mansfield. 
Several were recently admitted, by the courts of New York, in a 
very important question of title to real estate, near the Falls of 
Niagara ; and I have myself seen a person convicted of larceny, to 



1T4 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

a large amount, in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, ui^on the 
testimony of an Indian. 

But the gentleman assigned, as a reason for his assertion, that a 
belief in a future state of rewards and punishments was essential 
to their admissibility as witnesses. True, sir, and so it is with 
respect to all others. The objection is as valid against a white 
as a red man. If this act creates no new disability, why was it 
passed ? Why not leave them to the provisions of the common 
law ? But, sir, we learn, from an intelligent missionary, that 
there are a thousand members of Christian churches. These, and 
all other true believers, are excluded. Even those who are so 
distinguished for their knowledge, integrity, and ability, that the 
honorable Chairman would be willing himself to be represented 
by them in the Congress of the United States, are not permitted 
to testify in a court of justice. 

Under these enactments, the Cherokees are aliens in their 
native land ; trespassers upon their own soil ; outlaws in the 
bosom of their own nation ! 

But why should I dAvell upon the laws already passed, Avhen 
the same power can, at will, produce others to effectuate their 
avowed determination ? Who will pretend that the Indians can 
live under the legislation of the State ? The head of the Bureau 
of Indian affairs, in a communication transmitted to Congress by 
the Secretary of War, declares that it will " seal their destruction, 
as admitted by their chiefs ; " and the honorable chairman has 
frankly declared, in this debate, that it will reduce them to the 
last degree of wretchedness. His words were : " You cannot 
make a full-blooded Indian more miserable " than by such sub- 
jection ; and, in his written opinion of 1824, he emphatically says, 
" If the protection of the United States is withdrawn," " the Cher- 
okee nation cannot exist twelve months." 

The question now proposed by this amendment is. Shall that 
protection be withdraAvn, and the Indians be compelled to leave 
their country, under the penalty of certain destruction if they 
remain ? 

The interrogatory has been often repeated. Why should not 
Georgia extend her laws over the natives as avcU as other States ? 

Again, sir, I reply — our treaties — our treaties. The Indians 
object, and the United States have solemnly promised to inter- 
pose at their request. In no other instances have they opposed 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 175 

State legislation, and demanded our interposition. This is a suffi- 
cient answer. 

But this topic has been so much urged, and the effort has been 
so great to find shelter under the precedents of other States, that 
I will bestow upon them a moment's attention. That principally 
relied upon, and the only one specified, is a law of New York 
passed four or five years ago. The occasion was this. In one of 
the little reduced tribes, Avithin that State, a female had been 
executed as a witch. The executioner was indicted in the State 
court before one judge, and convicted. The question of jurisdic- 
tion was carried to the Superior Court, who never came to a 
decision, but advised a pardoning act ; whereupon this law was 
passed, which punishes certain high crimes committed within the 
tribe. Its sole object was the protection of the Indians, and it 
seemed to have been by their consent. They have never objected, 
much less claimed our interposition. Does this bear any analogy 
to the case of Georgia and the Cherokees ? When another tribe, 
the Oneidas, formed a Constitution or Government similar to that 
of the Cherokees, did New York interfere to destroy it and dis- 
solve the nation ? Far otherwise ; they protected them in its 
enjoyment. And such has been the general character of the legis- 
lation of other States. I shall not go back to the early days of 
colonial vassalage, although it is surpi'ising that so little color of 
precedent is to be found, even when the weakness of infancy was 
struggling for existence against the power of the savages. I sj^eak 
of the States, since they became such, under the confederation, or 
the Federal Constitution ; and say that their general legislation 
has been — not over the Indians, and acting upon the individuals 
within the territory of their tribe ; but protecting and preserving 
them as a distinct community — operating upon the whites, and 
restraining them from inflicting wrongs and injuries. The legis- 
lation of Georgia has thrown over them a net, which binds every 
limb in fetters, but is no shield of defence against assaults ; whilst 
that of other States has erected around them a wall of defence, 
guarding them against encroachments. 

This bill (said Mr. S.) provides for the removal of the Indians 
to distant regions beyond the Mississippi ; and it is proposed to 
place no less than half a million of dollars in the hands of the 
Secretary of War for that purpose. The amendment, now under 
consideration, declares that they shall be jprotected, in the enjoy- 



176 REMOVAL OF THE IXDIAXS. 

mciit of their rights, until tlicy shall choose to remove. The 
necessity for such a jjrovision is apparent. A^'ithout it, they have 
no option. Without it, this bill will add to the pressure of the 
torrent that is sweeping them away. 

Is it not known that acts for holding Indian treaties have been 
used as instruments of coercion ? When our commissioners have 
met the chiefs in council, to obtain farther acquisition of territory, 
have they not sometimes asked only, what will you reserve ? 
And when the answer has been, we have no lands to spare — we 
will cede nothing, this question is repeated, what will you 
reserve ? Congress have passed a law for the purpose of obtaining 
a portion of your soil — the United States are strong — their arms 
now sleep in peace ; beware how you arouse them from their 
slumbers ! 

xSot only has terror been inspired, but other means have been 
resorted to, to cause the women to influence their husbands ; the 
children to beseech their parents ; the warriors to urge the chiefs ; 
until their firmness is overcome. It is related of a venerable 
chief, that, yielding at last to this ii'resistible pressure, he signed 
the fatal parchment in tears ; declaring, at tlie time, that it was 
the death-warrant of his nation. 

Apprehending that our object is to obtain further cessions, the 
Indians have met us in council with fear and trembling. In one 
instance, five or six tribes being assembled, our commissioners 
announced to them that our only desire was to establish and pre- 
serve peace among themselves ; that we asked for no lands ; they 
instantly rent the air with acclamations of joy. No difficulties, no 
delays intervened, the treaties were accomplished at once. 

Is it uncharitable to suppose that agents, to be appointed under 
the direction of those who are now concerned in our Indian att'airs, 
may resort to force or terror ? Sir, the officer now at the head of 
the Indian Bureau, in his official report of a treaty of cession, 
made by him with the Creeks, states the fiict, that in two succes- 
sive councils he met only a firm denial ; and in the third, he says, 
one individual being most prominent in his opposition, it was not 
until he " broke him upon the spot," that the treaty was obtained ! 
Yes, sir, that officer avows that he " broke " one of the prominent 
chiefs in tlieir OM'n council, as the only means of accomplishing 
his purposes. And in an official communication sent to us by the 
Secretary of War, at the commencement of this session, the same 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 177 

officer recommends that the Government should send an " armed 
force " to the Cherokee country, to further the objects of this bill, 
the removal of the natives. He says, indeed, that he would make 
a solemn declaration that the military were not to be used to com- 
pel them to leave their country ; but only to give security to 
those that were willing to go. And would such a declaration, 
even if made, do away the effect of the presence of our bayonets ? 
What is the avowed purpose? To protect, against their own 
Government and people, the individuals who may choose to emi- 
grate ; but not to afford any aid or countenance to those who may 
choose to remain. The chiefs may inquire — Will these soldiers 
give us protection against the power of Georgia, if she shall 
attempt to force her laws upon us ? The reply must be — O, no, 
the President has decided that she has a right to govern you ; and 
if you should resist, the United States are bound to assist her in 
the execution of her laws against all opposition. When the Brit- 
ish minister remonstrated against the Emperor Alexander's 
annexing a part of Poland to his dominions, he replied : " I have 
three hundred thousand soldiers in that country." The argument 
was conclusive. If the Cherokees should hesitate, they might, in 
significant silence, be pointed to our glittering bayonets ! 

It is recommended to send an armed force to enable the Chero- 
kees to deliberate freely ! When the Roman orator appeared in 
defence of Milo, he found the forum surrounded by an armed 
force, accompanied, no doubt, by the declaration that it was only to 
preserve tranquillity. But even the tongue of Cicero was palsied 
by the formidable array, and his friend and client was abandoned 
to his fate. We know, sir, how the deliberations of the Parliament 
of Great Britain, and the National Conventions of France, have 
been aided by the presence of an armed force ; and history abounds 
with similar examples. 

I confess, sir, that I cannot but indulge fears of the use which 
may be made, by the War Department, of the half million of 
dollars, to be appropriated by this bill. We do know, that, in 
making Indian treaties, there have been instances of valuable reser- 
vations of lands, and large sums of money, being secretly given to 
individual chiefs, by confidential arrangements, to induce them to 
yield to our wishes, and betray the confidence reposed in them by 
their nation. Is it uncharitable to apprehend that such things 
may happen under the directions of the present Secretary of War ? 
12 



178 REMOVAL OF THE INDL\NS. 

Towards that high officer I have no feeling of unkindness. I 
seek no imputation upon his motives ; but his official acts I am 
bound, by the duties of my station, to examine. Look at the 
instructions given by him, in May last, to General Carroll, who 
was sent as an agent of the Government to induce the Chcrokces 
to a removal. They express throughout much solicitude for the 
welfare of the Indians, and profess to consult their best interests. 
But I am constrained to look at the acts to be done — the course of 
conduct prescribed. He is directed not to meet the Cherokccs in 
'' General Council," for " the consequence would be, what it has 
been, a firm refusal to acquiesce ; but to " appeal to the Chiefs and 
influential men — not together, but apart at their own houses : and 
to make offers to them of extensive reservations in fee simple and 
other rewards " to obtain " their acquiescence." He is further 
told — *' The more careful you are to secure from even the Chiefs the 
official character you bear, the better ; " — and again, " Go to them, 
not as a negotiator, but friend." " Open to each a view of his 
danger." — Again — " enlarge on their comparative degradation as a 
people, and the total impossibility of their ever attaining to higher 
privileges Avhilc they retain their present relations to a people who 
seek to get rid of them " — that their laMs " will be superseded and 
trodden under foot." Again, " enlarge upon the advantage of 
their condition in the West — there the General Government will 
protect them — improve them by instruction." They would become 
our equals in privileges, civil and religious, and that, " by refusing 
to remove, they must, necessarily, entail destruction on their race." 

I cannot but remark the parallel, between the course here pre- 
scribed and that which expelled our first parents from Paradise. 

When the arch-Tempter sought their removal, he assailed them 
" not together ; " but lest their joint " Council " should have baffled 
his arts ; but he found the feebler woman " apart " from her husband, 
deprived of the aid of her natural adviser — and carefully concealing 
his " official character " — of Satanic majesty ; assuming the guise of 
a *' friend ; " a kind instructor ; he told her, pursue the course 
which I advise, and the evils which have been predicted shall not 
follow ! " ye shall not surely die " — but you shall be enlightened 
and elevated — '* your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as 
gods, knowing good and evil." She listened and yielded : 

" Earth felt the wound, and nature from her seat, 
Sighin<? throuf^h all her works, gave signs of woe, 
That all was lost." 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 179 

She was made tlie instrument of seducing the man also. And 
both were driven from the garden of Eden, where the Creator 
had placed them, to the unsubdued wilderness of the world — 
and a flaming sword forever barred their return. 
* The adoption of such measures, is in the language of the mili- 
tary Secretary, to " move upon them in the line of their prejudices." 
And upon whom is it that we thus move ? — Those whom we have 
most solemnly promised to protect as faithful guardians ; whom 
we have called brothers ; whom we have taught to look up to the 
President, as their great father. Yes, we have endeavored to obtain 
over them the infliience of a parent ; but do we perform towards 
them the duties of that sacred relation ? 

It is said we must resort to such measures ; they are unavoid- 
able. The plea of State necessity is advanced. And is this 
great country, with peace in all its borders, now controlled by an 
ii'resistible power, that knows no rule, and consults no law ? 
Does this measure wear the garb of State necessity ? That, sir, is 
a high-handed tyrant^ not a smooth-tongue seducer. It is a lion, 
seizing its prey with open and resistless strength — not a serpent 
winding its sinuous way in secret to its victim. 

Without the adoption of this amendment, the Cherokees have 
no choice, but between the miseries of emigration, and destruction 
where they are. It is contended that it is for the best interest to 
remove. Leave that, sir, to theii* own decision. Our judgment 
may be two much guided by our own convenience. We undertook 
to judge for the Seminoles in Florida. We asked for their fertile 
lands, they objected, asserting that the residue would not support 
existence. We persisted ; and found means at last to obtain a 
reluc' ant cession. They departed in the deepest sorrow from their 
homes of comfort and plenty, to encounter want and misery upon 
a barren waste. Nineteen-twentieths of the territory which we 
left to them, consisted of sands where no verdure quickened — and 
of swamps upon which human life could not be sustained. The 
dreary description officially given by Governor Duval can hardly 
be exceeded. The consequence was, what the Seminoles foresaw, 
want, suffering, and starvation. The government was forthwith 
compelled to give twenty thousand dollars for food to preserve 
life, and to retrocede a portion of their territory. 

Whither are the Cherokees to go ? What are the benefits of 
the change ? What system has been matured for their seciuity ? 



180 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

What laws for their government ? These questions arc an- 
swered only l)y gihled promises in <fencral terms ; they arc to 
become enhghtcned and civiH/cd husbandmen. 

They now live by the cultivation of the soil and the mechanic 
arts. It is proposed to send them from their cotton fields, their 
farms and their gardens, to a distant and an unsubdued wilderness — 
to make them tillers of the earth ! — to move them from their looms, 
their work-shops, their printing-press, their schools and churches, 
near the Avhite settlements ; to frowning forests, surrounded Avith 
naked savages — that they may become enlightened and civilized ! 
We have pledged to them our protection — and, instead of shielding 
them where they now are, within our reach, under our own arm, we 
send these natives of a southern clime to northern regions, amongst 
fierce and warlike barbarians. And what security do we propose 
to them ? A new guarantee ! ! Who can look an Indian in the 
face, and say to him, mc and our fathers, for more than forty years, 
have made to you the most solemn promises ; we now violate and 
trample upon them all ; but offer you in their stead — another 
guarantee ! ! 

AVill they be in no danger of attack from the primitive inhabi- 
tants of the regions to which they emigrate? IIoav can it be 
otherwise ? The official documents show us the fact, that some 
of the few, who have already gone, were involved in conflicts with 
the native tribes, and compelled to a second removal. 

How are they to subsist ? Has not that country now as great 
an Indian population as it can sustain ? What has become of the 
original occupants ? Have we not already caused accessions to 
their numbers, and been compressing them more and more .'' Is 
not the conse([uence inevitable, that some must be stinted in the 
means of subsistence ? Here, too, we have the light of experi- 
ence. Hy an official communication from Governor Clark, the 
Su])erlntcndent of Indian affairs, we learn that the most powerful 
tribes, west of the ^Mississippi, are, every year, so distressed by 
famine, that many die for -want of food. The scenes of their 
suffering are hardly exceeded by the sieges of Jerusalem and 
Samaria. There, might be seen the miserable mother, in all the 
tortures which hunger can inffict, giving her last morsel for the 
sustenance of her child, and then fainting, sinking, and actually 
dying of starvation! And the orphan ! no one can spare it food, 
it is put ahve into the grave of the parent, wliich thus closes over 



REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 181 

the quick and the dead ! And this, not in a solitary instance 
only, but repeatedly and frequently. " The living child is often 
buried with the dead mother." * 

I am aware (said Mr. S.) that their white neighbors desire the 
absence of the Indians ; and if they can find safety and subsistence 
beyond the Mississippi, I should rejoice exceedingly at their 
removal, because it would relieve the States of their presence. I 
would do much to effect a consummation so devoutly to be wished. 
But let it be by their own free choice, unawed by fear, unseduced 
by bribes. Let us not compel them, by withdrawing the protec- 
tion which we have pledged, Theirs must be the pain of depart- 
ure, and the hazard of the change. They are men, and have the 
feelings and attachments of men ; and if all the ties which bind 
them to their country and their homes are to be rent asunder, let 
it be by their own free hand. If they are to leave forever the 
streams in which they have drank, and the trees under which they 
have reclined ; if the fires are never more to be lighted up in the 
council house of their chiefs, and must be quenched forever upon 
the domestic hearth, by the tears of the inmates, who have there 
joined the nuptial feast, and the funeral wail — if they are to look 
for the last time upon the land of their birth, which drank up the 
blood of their fathers, shed in its defence, and is mingled with the 
sacred dust of children and friends, to turn their aching vision to 
distant regions enveloped in darkness, and surrounded by dangers, 
let it be by their own free choice, not by coercion or the with- 
drawal of the protection of our plighted faith. They can best 
appreciate the dangers and difficulties which beset their path. It 
is their fate which is impending ; and it is their right to judge, 
while wc have no warrant to flxlsify our promise. 



* Extract from an official Report of Governor Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, dated 

March 1, 1826. 

" The condition of many tribes west of the Mississippi, is the most pitiable that 
can be imagined. During several seasons, in every year, they are distressed by 
famine, in which many die for want of food, and, during which, the living child is 
often buried with the dead mother, because no one can spare it as much food as 
would sustain it through its helpless infancy. This description applies to Sioux, 
Osages, and many others, but I mention those because they are powerful tribes, 
and live near our borders, and my official station enables me to know the exact 
truth. It is in vain to talk to people in this condition about learning and 
religion." 



182 REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

It is said that their existence cannot be preserved ; that it is the 
doom of Providence that they must perish. So, indeed, must Ave 
all; but let it be in the course of Xature, not by the hand of 
violence. If, in truth, they are now in the decrepitude of age, let 
us permit them to live out all their days, and die in peace ; not 
bring down their grey hairs in blood to a foreign grave. 

I know, sir, to what I expose myself. To feel any solicitude 
for the fate of the Indians may be ridiculed as false phihmthropy 
and morbid sensibility. Others may boldly say, " Their blood be 
upon us ; " and sneer at scruples, as a weakness unbecoming the 
stern character of a politician. If, sir, in order to become such, it 
be necessary to divest the mind of the principles of good faith and 
moral obligation, and harden the heart against every touch of 
humanity, I confess that I am not, and, by the blessing of Heaven, 
will never be — a politician. 

Sir, we cannot wholly silence the monitor within. It may not 
be heard amidst the clashings of the arena, in the tempest and 
convulsions of political contentions ; but its " still small voice " 
will speak to us, when we meditate alone at eventide — in the 
silent Avatches of the night, Avhen Ave lie doAvn, and Avhen Ave rise 
up from a solitary pillow, and, in that dread hour, Avhcn, "not 
what Avc have done for ourselves, but Avhat Ave have done for 
others," Avill be our joy and our strength ; Avhen — to have secured, 
even to the poor and despised Indian, a spot of earth upon Avhich 
to rest his aching head — to have given him but a cup of cold 
water, in charity, Avill be a greater tieasure than to liaAc been the 
conquerors of kingdoms, and lived in luxury upon their spoils. 



THE TARIFF. 



THE TARIFF. 



In Senate, March 22, 1832. 

Resolutions offered by Mr. Clay, declaring that certain duties ought 
to be abolished, and others reduced, being under consideration, Mr. 
Sprague spoke as follows : 

Mr. President : I had not intended to participate in the dis- 
cussion of this resolution, and should have persevered in my deter- 
mination to give a silent vote, had I not yesterday received certain 
resolutions of the Legislature of Maine in relation to the Tariff, 
which render it proper that I should submit a few remarks. 

When we enter these walls, we take a solemn oath, as repre- 
sentatives of the people, binding upon our consciences individ- 
ually ; it is to support the Constitution of the United States ; and 
our duties under it have reference to the whole Union. Every 
representative of the people here, duly impressed with the respon- 
sibilities of his station, must receive the instructions of other rep- 
resentatives of the people, in the State Legislature, with deferen- 
tial respect, and a sincere desire to act in accordance with them. 
If, unfortunately, this should conflict with his previous opinions, 
he should, with singleness of heart, and with care and delibera- 
tion, re-examine and re-consider the subject, with the hope of 
arriving at a harmonious result, and nothing but his deliberate 
convictions of public duty should ever induce him to decline a lit- 
eral conformity with such expressions of legislative opinion. But 
yet he may be constrained to do so by the highest obligations to 
the whole people, and the most sacred moral duty. 



186 THE TARIFF. 

On the present occasion, I have the satisfaction to believe that I 
shall be able to concur in the substance, if not in the form, of these 
resolutions. 

Their substantial object appears to be : 

1. To reduce the revenue from imposts to the proper expend- 
itures of Government. 

2. So to adjust the duties as to benefit the laboring classes. 
And 

3. To modify the tariff law of 1828. 

REVENUE AND PROTECTION. 

As to the first, I have long been, and am still, decidedly in 
favor of a reduction of duties. Years since, as a member of the 
finance committee of the other house, I exerted myself to accom- 
plish it, in relation to some of the most important articles contem- 
plated by the resolution of the member from Kentucky, (Mr. 
Clay.) 

It seems now to be generally agreed that the revenue ought to 
be diminished. But how ? In what manner ? That is the 
question. 

On the one side, we have the resolution of the member from 
Kentucky, f^Ir. Clay,) and, on the other, the proposition of the 
senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Hayne.) The former preserves 
the protective principle, and proposes legislation with a view to 
aid domestic industry and American products ; the latter discards 
and rejects such protection, as no legitimate object of any system 
of imports, denouncing it as utterly unconstitutional. 

It is now even insisted that, in imposing duties primarily for 
revenue, we have no right to have any regard to their incidental 
effect in encouraging domestic manufactures, which, until recently, 
has never been denied. 

I shall not go at large into the constitutional question, but 
suggest a few considerations : 

The light to lay imposts, and to regulate commerce Avith for- 
eign nations, is given in express, unequivocal terms. The letter 
of the Constitution clearly confers the power to vary imposts and 
commercial regulations at pleasure. But it is insisted that it was 
never within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution, 
that the power thus conferred was to be used for the purpose of 



THE TARIFF. 187 

aiding or protecting any occupation or branch of industry in our 
country ; and that such exercise of it is, therefore, against its orig- 
inal spirit and intention. 

The history of the times, anterior and subsequent to the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, shows this assertion to be utterly ground- 
less. 

After Great Britain had acknowledged our independence, she 
put in full force against us the system of protection and inhibition, 
by which our ships were to be excluded from her ports, while 
British vessels were freely admitted to ours ; and we were to pur- 
chase her manufactures, of all kinds, while she, in effect, prohib- 
ited the greater portion of our productions, receiving such only as 
were of indispensable necessity to her prosperity. Thus, after as 
before the revolution, the rich streams of our industry were to be 
directed into British channels, to exhaust our resources, and SAvell 
her wealth. She had, indeed, ceased hostilities by arms, but she 
substituted a war upon our trade, by restrictions and commercial 
regulations. Against this species of attack, the United States 
were defenceless. The Confederation had no power to impose 
duties or regulate commerce ; and could not, therefore, counter- 
act the deadly influence of foreign legislation. Several of the 
States, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and oth- 
ers, attempted to protect themselves by acts of their own Legisla- 
tures ; but they were rendered nugatory by the omission of neigh- 
boring States to cooperate in one system. Massachusetts, for 
example, imposed restrictive duties upon the productions of for- 
eign nations ; but, while they were received freely into all the 
ports of Rhode Island and Connecticut, her imposts were wholly 
inefficacious. It was soon perceived that, to defend ourselves 
successfully against this insidious hostility to our trade and indus- 
try, we must have recourse to the same means which had been so 
triumphant against the assaults of open force — the creation of a 
common power to bring into exercise the concerted and united 
energies of all the States, and, by an uniforni system, to meet 
adverse legislation by counter legislation, to oppose restriction to 
restriction, and interdict to interdict. The first idea was to invest the 
Confederation with this power, and measures were taken with this 
view ; but it was soon jjerceivecl that additional strength, for other 
important purposes, was also necessary ; and, instead of attempt- 
ing a mere amendment of the articles of confederation, a new and 



188 THE TARIFF. 

General Government was established, with enlarged powers. A 
primary, if not the principal cause, which conduced to the form- 
ation of our present Constitution, Avas this very purpose of giving 
efficient protection to our own citizens in the pursuits of their 
industry, against the unfriendly and injurious restrictions of for- 
eign nations. And, pursuant to this design, the first Congress of 
the United States, immediately upon the organization of the new 
Government, framed laws, Avith express and avowed reference to 
the advancement and protection of American products and pur- 
suits ; and those acts, or others having in view the same object, 
have been in full operation from that time to the present moment. 

The positions which I have assumed, and the sketch now pre- 
sented, are fully sustained by the documentary history of the early 
ages of the Republic. I shall offer to the Senate but a small part 
of the abundant evidence which might be adduced. 

The attempts of Massachusetts to counteract the destructive 
effects of foreign discriminations having been defeated by the non- 
concurrence of the other States, many of her citizens presented a 
petition to the Continental Congress, at the head of which Avas the 
signature of John Hancock, that glorious name Avhich, in bold and 
commanding characters, was the first affixed to the Declaration of 
American Independence, and which will ever be held in grateful 
and reverential remembrance by the friends of liberty throughout 
the world. That memorial breathed the following language : 

" Your petitioners observe, that the ships and conimodities of that 
nation, whose insidious conduct has long been the object of our peculiar 
jealousy, arc received in our ports under the same advantages with our 
own, while our navigation, in return, is discouraged by every possible 
embarrassment ; and our exports, on their part, are either prohibited, or, if 
admitted to their ports, are loaded with the most rigorous exactions. In 
proof of our assertions, we need only point the attention of Congress to 
the enormous duty on our rice, oil, and tobacco ; to the principle and 
spirit of their navigation laws ; or to a bill lately agitated in the British 
Parliament, which now, most probably, has the sanction of a law, for the 
support and encouragement of their American fisshcry, to the direct preju- 
dice of ours, and is intended to derive that benefit from these States which, 
in our apprehension, and on their principles, ought only to be permitted 
in our own bottoms. 

" Impressed with these ideas, your petitioners beg leave to request of 
the very august body which they now have the honor to address, that the 
numerous impositions of the British on the trade and exports of these 



THE TARIFF. 189 

States, may be forthwith contravened by similar expedients on our part; 
else, may it please your excellency and honors, the commerce of this coun- 
try, and of consequence its wealth, power, and perhaps the Union itself, 
may become victims to the artifice of a nation, whose arms have been in 
vain exerted to accomplish the ruin of America." 

The Legislature of Pennsylvania, near the same period, passed 
the following Resolutions, in conseq^uence of petitions from the 
citizens of that State : 

" Resolved, That it is the opinion of this House, that the privilege in 
the degree hitherto retained by the States individually, of controlling and 
regulating their own trade, is no longer compatible with the general 
interest and welfare of the United States ; reason and experience clearly 
evincing, that such privilege is productive of mutual inconveniences, and 
injurious among ourselves; and that the systems of several nations, by 
which our merchants are excluded from the most beneficial branches of 
commerce, whilst the whole of ours is laid open to them, cannot be con- 
sistently or eifectually counteracted, but by a unity of councils in the 
great representative body of the United States. 

" Resolved, therefore. That Congress be requested to devise such a 
system of commercial powers, as they ought necessarily to be invested 
with, to be recommended to the States ; and that Congress be assured of 
finding the most suitable disposition on the part of Pennsylvania to com- 
ply therewith." 

In 1784, Congress adopted the report of a Committee holding 
the following language, with reference to the hostile legislation of 
the British Government : 

" It would be the duty of Congress, as it is their wish, to meet the 
attempts of Great Britain with similar restrictions on her commerce ; but 
their powers on this head are not explicit, and propositions made by the 
Legislature of the several States, render it necessary to take the general 
sense of the Union on this subject. 

" Unless the United States in Congress assembled shall be vested with 
powers, competent to the protection of commerce, they can never command 
reciprocal advantages in trade; and, without these, our foreign commerce 
must decline and eventually be annihilated. Hence it is necessary, that 
the States should be explicit, and fix on some effectual mode by which 
foreign commerce, not founded on principles of equality, may be restrained." 

And subsequently, in July, 1785, a report was made by another 
Committee of the Continental Congress, of which Mr. Monroe 



190 THE TARIFF. 

was chairman J recommending, that the Articles of Confederation 
be so amended as to confer additional strength ; and that a letter 
be addressed to the Lcsfislatures of the several States, shov.inic 
the principles upon Avhich the alterations were proposed. The 
following is an extract from the epistle thus recommended : 

" The common principle upon which a friendly commercial intercourse 
is conducted between independent nations, is, that of reciprocal advan- 
tages ; and, if this is not obtained, it becomes the duty of the losing party 
to make such farther regulations, consistently with the faith of treaties, as 
will remedy the evil and secure its interests. If, then, the commercial 
regulations of any foreign power contravene the interests of any particular 
State, if they refuse admittance to its produce into its ports, upon the 
same terms that the State admits its manufactures here, what course will 
it take to remedy the evil ? If it makes similar regulations to counteract 
those of that power, by reciprocating the disadvantages which it feels, by 
imposts or otherwise, will it produce the desired effect? What operation 
will it have upon the neighboring States? AVill they enter into similar 
regulations, and make it common cause? On the contrary, will they not, 
in pursuit of the same local policy, avail themselves of this circumstance, 
to turn it to their particular advantage ? Thus, then, we behold the sev- 
eral States taking separate measures in pursuit of their particular interests 
in opposition to the regulations of foreign powers, and separately aiding 
those powers to defeat the regulations of each other — for, unless the States 
act together, there is no plan of policy into which they can separately 
enter, which they will not be separately interested to defeat, and of course 
all their measures must prove vain and abortive." 

The palpable necessity of strengthening the Confederation led 
to various discussions, propositions and resolutions, whicli resulted 
in the establishment of our present Constitution. The new gov- 
ernment was to have been organized on the fourth of ]March, 
1789 ; but a quorum of both branches of the National Legislature 
did not assemble luitil the sixth day of April. The first petition 
presented to the House Avas on Saturday, the eleventh of that 
month, " from the tradesmen, manufacturers, and others, of the 
town of J^altimore, in the State of ^Maryland — praying an impo- 
sition of such duties on all foreign articles which can be made in 
America, as will give a just and decided preference to the labors 
of the petitioners ; " " and that there may be granted to them, in 
common with other manufacturers and mechanics of the United 
States, such relief as, in the wisdom of Congress, may appear 
proper." 



THE TARIFF. 191 

It was referred to a Committee of the Whole, into which the 
House was immediately resolved, and their report, in the following 
language, was forthwith adopted : 

" Resolved, That it is the opiuion of this committee, that an act ought 
to pass for regulating the collectiou of imposts and tonage in the United 
States." 

" Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said 
resolution." 

The second petition to the House, and which was presented on 
the INlonday following, was from the shipwrights of the city of 
Charleston, in the State of South Carolina — praying for " such 
measures, in a general regulation of trade and the establishment 
of a proper navigation, as will tend to relieve the particular dis- 
tresses of the petitioners, and, in common with them, those of 
their fellow shipwrights throughout the United States." 

The first act passed by Congress was to regulate the adminis- 
tering of the oaths necessary to the constitutional organization of 
the government. The second was to impose duties upon foreign 
goods. It contained the following preamble : 

" Whereas, it is necessary for the support of Government, for the dis- 
charge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and 
protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and 
merchandises, imported." 

It contained a discrimination in favor of importations in American 
bottoms. 

The next, being the third act of the first Congress, was also 
passed, with the most unequivocal reference to the protection of 
American industry. It imposed a tonnage duty of fifty cents upon 
foreign vessels, and six cents only upon our own. 

Mr. Madison has been justly denominated the great constitutional 
lawyer of this country ; and perhaps no man was ever more pro- 
foundly versed in the principles, or thoroughly imbued with the 
spirit, of the Constitution ; and, in its construction, no name, except 
that of Washington himself, would carry a more preponderating 
influence. He was a member of the first Congress, and a most 
zealous and efficient advocate of the measures of protection, speak- 
ing with glowing indignation of the restrictive policy of Great 
Britain, and in strong and energetic terms of the right and duty of 



193 THE TARIFF. 

this Government to counteract it, and declaring that the Constitu- 
tion was formed for that purpose. The following is an extract 
from one of his speeches : 

" We have now the power to avail ourselves of our national superi- 
ority, and I am for beginning with some manifestation of that ability, that 
foreign nations may be taught to pay us that respect which they have 
neglected on account of our imbecility. This language, and these senti- 
ments, arc the language and sentiments of our constituents ; the great 
political revolution now brought about by the organization of the new 
Government, has its foundation in these sentiments. Sensible of the self- 
ish policy which actuated a nation long disposed to do all she could to dis- 
courage our commercial operations, the States singly attempted to counter- 
act her nefarious schemes ; but, finding their separate exertions ineffectual, 
with a united voice they called for a new arrangement, constituted to 
concentre, conduct, and point their powers, so as to obtain that reciprocity 
which justice demands. The arrangement has taken place ; and though 
gentlemen may contend, that we are not at this moment prepared to use it 
in the latitude I could wish, yet let them concur in doing what shall indi- 
cate, that, on a proper occasion, we dare exert ourselves in defeating any 
measure which commercial policy shall offer, hostile to the welfare of 
America." 

On the seventh of May, 1789, he uttered the following lan- 
guage : 

" I am amazed, sir, when I consider how, in consequence of her regu- 
lations, the whole proceeds of American shipments are drawn into the 
vortex of the British treasury. Sir, this preponderation ought not to be. 
It is in our power to effect an alteration. The productions of our country 
are more necessary to Great Britain, and the rest of the world, than those 
of the world at large, or the manufactures of Great Britain, are to us." 

How could he have expressed himself more clearly and strongly 
as to any purpose in the formation of the new government and the 
consequent duty of its members .' 

President Washington, in his Address to both branches of Con- 
gress, in January, 1790, recommended agriculture, commerce and 
manufactures to their attention. The House of Representatives 
" Ordered, that it be referred to the Secretaiy of the Treasury 
to prepare a report to this House, a proper plan or plans, confor- 
mably to the recommendation of the President of the United St<ites 
in his Speech to both Houses of Congress, for the encouragement 



THE TARIFF. 193 

and promotion of such manufactures as will tend to render the 
United States independent of other nations for essential, particu- 
larly for military, supplies." In obedience to which. General 
Hamilton , then Secretary of the Treasury, a member of the cabinet 
under the eye of Washington himself, prepared and presented 
to Congress his celebrated and elaborate report upon the subject of 
manufactures, recommending, by strong facts and unanswered 
reasoning, their encouragement by national legislation. 

In obedience to a resolution of the House of E-epresentatives of 
February, 1791, Mr. Jefferson, then vSecretary of State, made his 
able and admirable report upon the commerce of the United States, 
in which he decidedly recommends the system of counteracting 
protection. In one place lie expresses himself thus : 

" But should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better 
find its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties and 
regulations, it behoves us to protect our citizens, their commerce and 
navigation, by counter prohibitions, duties, and regukitions, also. Free 
commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions 
and vexations; nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them." 

Again : 

" 1. Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or pro- 
hibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs : 
first burdening or excluding those productions which they bring here, in 
competition with our own of the same kind ; selecting next, such manu- 
factures as we take from them in greatest quantity, and which at the 
same time we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from other 
countries ; imposing on them duties, lighter at first, but heavier and heavier 
afterwards, as other channels of supply open," etc. 

Sir, I might heap authority upon authority, and extract upon 
extract, until I should fatigue the Senate. Our whole legislative 
history abounds with them. The framers of the Constitution, its 
cotemporaneous expositors, those who were earliest called upon to 
execute its provisions, the preeminent statesmen of the earliest 
days of the Republic, never, for a moment, doubted that it con- 
tained this fostering and protective power for the advancement of 
American industry. Indeed, it w^as known, felt and avowxd, that 
this was one of the great leading objects of its creation, which it 
was the solemn duty of Congress to keep constantly in view, and 
which they could never neglect and be innocent. 
13 



194 THE TARIFF. 

The States had, by the First Article of the Constitution, ex- 
pressly divested themselves of the right to protect their own prod- 
ucts by imjjosts upon foreign importations. No one even now 
contends that the States individually have this power. They did 
possess it before, under the Confederation. Why did they 
renounce it ? Can any man seriously deny, that it was in order 
that it might be vested in the General Government, to be more 
efficaciously exercised ? The war of commercial restrictions, waged 
by Great Britain, was severely felt by many of the States. They 
found themselves incapable of effectual resistance, by repeated 
efforts, and therefore concentrated all their powers in the General 
Government ; and now, shall that Government, having become 
the depository of all their arms, and their whole means of defence, 
leave them, naked and unarmed, exposed to the attacks of their 
enemies ? Is there not the same necessity now for resisting the 
commercial hostility of Great Britain that there was in 1789 ? Is 
not her system of restrictions and prohibitions in full and vigor- 
ous operation ? Will she receive a single article fioni us that she 
can dispense with ? Will she admit into her ports any of the 
staples of the Northern, Middle, or Western States ? — our corn or 
grain, our beef or pork, our fish or lumber — any of our vegetable 
or animal food, the produce of the seas, the forest, or the soil !* 
We knoAv that she will not. And can it be believed that, while 
this hostile system continues, on the part of foreign nations, to 
counteract which was a sjiecial and prominent object of the forma- 
tion of our Constitution, that this Government is to be preserved 
by abandoning those measures of defence which have been in 
operation, with such wonderful success, from the dawn of its 
existence ; that the States, who have bound themselves for the 
express purpose of common, united protection, under the broad 
and ample shields of the Union, will now permit that a^gis to be 
withdrawn, themselves to be divested of their panoply of defence, 
and that the ligaments which bind their limbs from separate action 
shall still continue in all their tension ? 

Sir, Ave always have had, and, so long as other nations shall per- 
severe in their present policy, we must have, some system of pro- 
tection for our industry. The true question is, what it shall be, 
and to what extent it shall be carried. 

And this problem, the adjustment of a Tariff, is one of almost 
infinite and inconceivable difficidty. It involves the most pro- 



THE TARIFF. 195 

found principles of political economy, the most comprehensive 
views of civilized society, the most extended knowledge of the 
productions of nature, and the minutest details of the diversified 
and multitudinous occupations of mankind. 

I consider the resolution now before us as substantially involv- 
ing only the question of protection or no protection — tariff, or no 
tarifl^; and that the mode and manner is to be discussed and 
decided when proper bills shall be introduced. In this aspect 
of the subject, therefore, I shall ask your attention only to a 
few general principles. 

BENEFITING THE LABORING CLASS. 

In any and every adjustment of the tariff, we should exercise a 
primary regard to the interests of the laboring class of the com- 
munity. We must all feel and know our obligations to, and 
dependence upon, them. There is not a member of either house 
of Congress from the North, who does not owe his seat here to 
that body of men, and to them is his highest responsibility. 
We are emphatically the representatives of labor, and should 
never, for a moment, be unmindful of our solemn duty to aid 
and advance its interest. But in what manner is this desirable 
end to be attained ? That is the j)robleni, in political science, 
which we are called upon to solve. 

The first, all-important means is to furnish employment. The 
next is, to make labor as productive as practicable. 

The object of a tariff should be : 

1. To give employment to those who would otherwise be with- 
out it. 

2. To make labor more productive and more profitable. 
The law which accomplishes this is beneficial. 

On the other hand, any system, or want of system, which throws 
out of employment those who would otherwise be occupied, or 
changes labor from the more profitable to the less productive 
branches, is so far injurious. 

I say, sir, that the primary and most important of all means of 
benefiting the laboring class, and, indeed, every class of the com- 
munity, is to furnish them wdth employment ; presenting oppor- 
tunities and inducements to free, voluntary, constant, productive 
occupation. Your legislation should say to the people, " Be 
employed ; profitably, if you can ; but be honestly employed." 



196 THE TARIFF. 

If I were asked, what was the first, second, and third req- 
uisites to the permanent jDrosperity and happiness of an individ- 
ual or a community, I should answer, Laboi* — labor — Udjor. 

In this we have discovered what the alchymists of okl so long 
sought for in vain as the giand desiderata of human existence, 
the philosopher's stone, which converts dust into gold, and the 
elixir vittr, which confers perpetual health. 

It is the fountain of wealth, sending forth streams perennial 
and innumerable, whose incessant flow confers unmeasured bless- 
ings. Its fruits are constantlv consumed and constantly rej^ro- 
duced. Let human labor stand still, and how long would its 
present accumulations sustain human existence ? They would 
expire^ like the unfed lamp ; vanish, like the mists of the morn- 
ing. 

Labor is the best measure of exchangeable value. A want of due 
regard to this important truth, has occasioned infinite perplexity 
and confusion in speeches and Avritings upon the Tariff. In order 
to determine its merits or demerits, they inquire whether the price 
of its objects has been increased or diminished. On the one side, 
is selected a class of articles, the price of which is, undoubtedly, 
increased by the imposts ; and, on the other, a list of products 
which are, in no degree, aflfected by the duties in the statute book. 
From the one set of examples, it is vehemently insisted, that 
imposts always enhance the price, and from the other as confi- 
dently, that they never have that eflect. Such reasoners, starting 
from difi'erent premises, and diverging as they progress in their 
course, can never come at any common conclusion. 

In order to ascertain whether the tariff laws are beneficial or 
injurious, they incj^uire whether they do or do not increase the 
price of articles, and to this devote all their energies, as if the 
answer Avere decisive of the priinary question. Tut the response, 
if it were given, would not be conclusive, because the price about 
which they dispute, is measured by money, that is, the precious 
metals — no permanent standard — but themselves, measured by 
something else. 

Why is gold more highly appreciated than iron .'' Not for its 
comparative utility ; not on account of the necessary and useful 
purposes to which it can be applied ; for, if mankind were to be 
wholly deprived of one of those metals, they had better, by a 
thousand times, dispense with the former than the latter. V>\xt it 



.THE TARIFF. 197 

is because, both being desirable, the difficuhy, the labor, of obtain- 
ing the one is so much greater than that of procuring the other. 
If mines of gold and silver should suddenly be discovered, ren- 
dering them as abundant, and produced with as little labor as 
iron, they would be even less valuable than that common metal. 
One consequence would be, that a debtor — that is, he who had 
promised to deliver another a certain quantity of gold or silver, 
would be able to procure it and discharge his debt, with far less 
labor than before ; while the creditor, whose wealth consisted in 
the obligations of others to deliver him these metals, would find 
himself reduced to comparative poverty. 

The light of day bears no price, has no exchangeable value. 
Why ? — because it is the free, inexhaustible, glorious gift of all- 
bountiful Heaven, requiring no labor of man. But let the sun 
descend below the horizon — let the darkness of night envelope us, 
and then we are ready to purchase at a price, the dim and feeble 
rays of artificial light, and to pay therefor, in proportion to the 
labor requisite to obtain the oil, or other material, by which it 
must be sustained. 

Labor, then, is the best measure of exchangeable value, and the 
best standard by which to determine the benefits or the evils of a 
tariff system ; price, in its usual acceptation, having reference to 
that fallacious standard — money. A course of legislation Avhich 
diminishes the price of articles, may be injurious to the people, 
while one that increases it may be beneficial ; and, on the other 
hand, a law which diminishes price may benefit, and one which 
increases it injure, the public. 

Thus, if you diminish the price of the articles which a farmer 
or mechanic wishes to procure, but, at the same time, depress still 
more, the commodities which he has to give in exchange, you 
injure him ; while, if you enhance the price of those things, 
which he purchases, but, by the same act, increase still more, that 
of the articles which he is to give in return, you confer a benefit. 

It should be known and remembered, that the great all-pervad- 
ing article to be given in exchange, is human labor, in its various 
forms, modifications, fruits, and products. What are the means 
by which the great body of mechanics, farmers, artisans, and 
workmen of all kinds, are to procure the necessaries and comforts 
of life — their labor or its products — the operation and efiects of 
skill and strength. Let their whole labor cease, and distress, ruin. 



198 THE TARIFF. 

destruction, overwhelms them, and the whole comminiity, at 
once. 

For what object is labor performed ? — is it not to procure the 
comforts and conveniences of life ? Money is to be desired only 
as the means, but not as the paramount end. 

With reference to this subject, therefore, that system of legisla- 
tion is best, which gives to labor the greatest amount of comforts 
and conveniences. This is a cardinal principle, which should be 
kept constantly in view — a polar star to guide our course through 
this pathless, boundless, stormy, tumultuous ocean — of the TariflP. 

If a law shall tend to increase the price of articles of consump- 
tion, still, if, in my deliberate judgment, it will enhance the price 
of labor, still more, I shall not hesitate to adopt it ; while, on the 
other hand, if it shall diminish the price of that which is to be 
purchased — but depress, in a greater degree, the labor by which 
they are to be procured, I shall certainly resist it. 

It has been said, that, if the mechanic and farmer were asked to 
pay the increase of price, by reason of the duty, separately, they 
would object That, sir, depends wholly ujDon the form of the 
(question. If, when the hatter is about to purchase a pair of 
boots, he is asked. Are you willing to pay fifty cents additional 
for the duty ? he would, doubtless, answer, No : but if he were 
asked. Are you willing to pay that amount, if you can thereby 
obtain a dollar more, for the hat, which you must, directly or 
indirectly, give in exchange ? his answer Avould be in the affirma- 
tive. The farmer wishes to procure cloth — he takes his wheat or 
wool to market. Are you willing to pay five cents a yard as 
duty ? No. But, suppose you can thereby obtain ten cents more 
for the quantity of grain, or wool, necessary to purchase the yard, 
will you then consent ? Certainly. So of every other article. 
The true question is, In what manner will the products of his 
labor procure most of the commodities Avhich he wishes to obtain 
in exchange for it ? 

Discussions of the princij)les of political economy, have gener- 
ally had reference to the body politic as a luiit — to one homoge- 
neous community. But the American statesman is ever to bear 
in mind, that ours is not a consolidated empire ; that the states 
arc modified sovereignties, with diversified interests and sacred 
rights. This is one of the elements essential to any correct judg- 
ment of a tariff system, and aggravates, not a little, the inherent 
difficulties of this most difficult subject. 



THE TARIFF. 199 

The complaints which we have heard, and still hear, from an 
important section of the Union, are entitled to the most respectful 
consideration, and profound attention. 

Although their pictures of distress may be overcharged with 
sombre coloring, yet, coming from such sources, we are bound to 
receive them as evidence, at least, of comparative depression. But 
when they attribute this exclusively to national legislation, we are 
to examine and inquire whether there may not be some other and 
more efficacious cause. And such, I believe, will be found in the 
character of their laboring population — the existence of slavery. 
For, whenever, in any part of the world, we find this evil, we find 
the community in which it exists, comparatively stationary and 
depressed. Is it not eminently so whh. many of the West India 
islands ? 

It has been matter of surprise with our brethren of the South, 
that their cries of danger and distress have not produced more 
evident impression upon us, of the North. Pemit me to suggest 
one or two reasons for this, our apparent want of excitability. 

One is to be found in their having, too often, made the institu- 
tion of slavery a means of combination, for political objects, against 
the free States. With that institution, the North have carefully 
abstained from all interference. They have left it, where the 
Constitution places it, in the exclusive custody of the States where 
it exists. Upon this exciting and absorbing subject, they have 
exercised uniform and wonderful forbearance. And yet, notwith- 
standing all this, it is believed, that when it has been deemed 
expedient to arouse all hearts and unite all hands in the slave 
(States, for political purposes, the cry has been raised, that the 
North — the North — are attempting to emancipate our slaves — are 
scattering the firebrands of a servile war — that massacre and confla- 
gration may sweep over the land ! 

The tocsin thus sounded, the alarum bells thus rung, have had 
their effisct, which the North have felt and known to be unjust. 
The consequence is natural, that when any outcry is raised upon 
another topic, they should give somewhat less heed to it at first 
than they otherwise would have done. 

Another reason is to be found in the course pursued in relation 
to this same matter, of the more recent tariff laws. After the late 
war. New England was no favorite with the majority of the 
nation. Possessing, as it was supposed, more than her proportion 



200 THE TAIUFF. 

of disposable capital, and, from the density and character of her 
population, the most cfKcicnt means of carrying on hostilities, she 
had not come forward, in the manner, which I have thought, and 
still most sincerely think, she ought to have done, in support of 
tlie national government. For this, she was, undoubtedly, in bad 
odor here ; and when the tariff law came to be revised, her wishes 
were by no means especially consulted. She had grown rich, as 
it was supposed, by commerce ; it was thought best to give new 
encouragement to manufiictures ; and if the effect should be to 
diffuse her wealth over other portions of the country, which had 
devoted their means in a more patriotic manner during the last 
conflict, it was a consequence, at least, not to be deprecated. She 
raised her voice against the proposed modifications of the protective 
system, and, up to the year 1825, she was, upon this subject, in 
perfect harmony with the South.* 

The bill of 1824 was adverse to her wishes, and encountered 
the decided opposition of her representatives. It passed. It 
became the law of the land. It was your desire that the course of 
industry should, in some measure, be changed, that a greater 
amoixnt of capital should be invested in manufactures. What was 
she to do ? What did she do ? Resist ? No, sir, she bowed in 
submission to your decision, and conformed to the course of 
national legislation. She changed the investments of her capital ; 
she entered upon new paths of labor ; she encountered great 
hazard and sustained severe losses from want of skill and experi- 
ence in establishing neAv branches of industry, beneficial to the 
whole country. And now, when the first obstacles have been 
surmounted, and her citizens are about to receive some return for 
their vast sacrifices and unremitted exertions, they are called upon 
for another and still greater change ; their establishments are to 
be raised to their foundations ; the sound of the loom and the 
hammer are to cease ; new investments are to be made ; new arts 
ac([iiire(l ; new employments sought. And, because they do not 
readily assent to such propositions, denunciations, loud and long, 
are poured upon their devoted heads. Passing by the whole Westj 
and ([ulte over the great States of Pennsylvania and New York — 
the fathers and fohferers of the present Tariff — all their curses, for 



* 111 tliat year, a cili7.en of New England was elected President ; and opposi- 
tion to his adminiHtrution immediately commenced. 



THE TARIFF. 201 

this, to them, accursed thing, seem to be concentrated upon New 
England. It is against the North-East — New England alone, 
that the outcry is raised, and the feelings of indignation and 
resentment aroused.* Even the gentleman from South Carolina, 
(Mr. Hayne,) in invoking conciliation and relief to the South, 
confined his appeal to the Middle States. Is it surprising that 
such complaints, mingled with such injustice, and made, not 
always, in a tone of remonstrance or conciliation, but too often in 
that of menace and contumely, should not find immediate favor, 
and an instant and kind response ? Sir, we are men, and have 
the feelings incident to humanity ; and, if we do not speak as 
loudly, we feel as deeply, and act as firmly, as others. The lan- 
guage of each portion of this Union to every other, should be that 
of kindness, conciliation, and fraternal regard. By compromise 
was the Government formed, by mutual concession only, can it be 
preserved. There is much danger that a dififerent style of address 
may produce too great a reaction. Against such effects, I have 
sedulously endeavored to guard my own breast, and have endeav- 
ored to divest myself of all influences, but such as ought to per- 
vade a member of the American Senate, placed here to consult the 
rights, the interests, and the permanent happiness of the whole 
country. 

TAEIFF OF 1828. 

I was opposed to the Tariff Bill of 1828 ; and, as a member 
of the other branch, raised my voice and gave my vote against it. 
It came here, was materially amended, and returned to the House 
of Representatives. Still, it did not meet my approbation, and I 
resisted its final passage. It prevailed, and became a law. As I 
then said, the question of a repeal, the prostration of a system, is a 
very different one from that of its original enactment. If I had 
been asked whether I would consent to the laws passed for the 
erection of this vast and costly edifice, I should have answered in 
the negative. But shall I therefore assent to a proiDosition to 
demolish this splendid structure, and level it with the dust ? 

But notwithstanding this difference in the state of the question, 
I am decidedly in favor of a modification — a change — of the tariff 

* The speech of Mr. Tyler, of Vii-ginia, is an exception to this remark. 



202 THE TARIFF. 

law of 1828. I shall, I tiusst, have an opportunity to state to 
what extent, and in what particulars, when it shall be proper to 
go into detail. 

In the adjustment of every scheme of legislative protection, we 
must have reference to the necessities of the country in war, to 
the requisites for perfect defence, and essential independence ; 
we must have regard also to the original adaptations, capabilities 
and advantages of our country, so that the applications of ait may 
be rendered most powerful and productive by cooperating with 
the effects of natiu-e ; we are to keep in view former legislation 
and its effects, and the present condition of the property, capacity 
and industry of our citizens — we are to consult too, the separate 
interests, the peculiar views, and even the prejudices, if such there 
be, of the several States, and the different sections of the Union. 
Of the various pursuits and employments, those are to be chiefly 
fostered which conduce, not merely to wealth, but to the preser- 
vation and permanency of our republican institutions — and that 
which is entitled to precedence of all others is. Agriculture, which, 
as it was the first, so it is the most important of human occupa- 
tions. Coeval with the creation, it will terminate only with the 
extinction of the human race. Commencing in the garden of 
Eden, it was one of the joys of Paradise, continued in the thorny 
wilderness of the world, attendant upon the first cui'se, to mitigate 
and render it supportable, it has been the solace of fallen man. 
It is the employment most congenial to his combined physical, 
moral and intellectual constitution, and most conducive to the 
happiness of individuals, and of communities. To free and 
independent husbandmen, we may confidently look for that moral- 
ity, intelligence and piety, upon which the hopes of freedom must 
rest. " Protected by the di^'inity they adore, supported by the 
earth which they cultivate, at peace with themselves," they bow 
to no master, and seek no change. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



Prior to the administration of General Jackson, the trade between the 
United States and the British West Indies had attracted much attention, 
and, at times, excited much interest. A controversy respecting it had been 
carried on between the United States and Great Britain, ever since the 
organization of our Government. The object of each party was to 
secure to its own vessels the carrying trade. It was a question of naviga- 
tion, not of commerce. Our productions were desired by the West 
Indies, and theirs were highly useful to us. The interchange of commo- 
dities, therefore, was desired by all. But Great Britain insisted upon 
certain advantages for her vessels in carrying on this commerce, which 
would tend to exclude our own, from that participation in it, to which we 
were fairly entitled ; and both nations had been tenacious upon this sub- 
ject, not only for the purpose of fostering a branch of industry, but still 
more for its eflfects in building up the means of a Military Marine. There 
had been legislation and counter-legislation in both countries, which some- 
times subjected this commerce to circuity and restriction, and sometimes 
to entire prohibition. Acts of Congress had been passed prohibiting this 
commerce, except upon certain conditions, deemed necessary for the 
protection of our navigation, and authorizing the President to open 
our ports by proclamation, when the British should comply with such 
conditions. Soon after General Jackson came into power, it seems to 
have been determined to disregard the claims of our shipping, and to 
open the trade by yielding to the claims of Great Britain. An arrange- 
ment was accordingly made, merely by diplomatic correspondence, with- 
out any treaty, for carrying on the trade, upon the conditions which 
the British Government had contended for, and which we had so long 
resisted ; and thus a controversy which had been carried on from the 
origin of the Government, was terminated by an unconditional surrender 
on our part. This was immediately proclaimed by the presses, and par- 
tisans of the administration, as a great diplomatic achievement. The 
subject came up in the Senate of the United States, and the following 
speech was delivered by Mr. Sprague. 



COLONIAL TRADE, 



In Senate, April 3, 1832. 

The arrangement of the Colonial Tin/lc with Great Britain, being 
under consideration in the Senate, April 3, 1832, Mr. Sprague made the 
following Speech. 

Mr. President : The gentleman from New York, (Mr. 
Marcy,) dissatisfied with the result of a comparison of the expend- 
itures of the late and present administrations, has resorted to the 
substitution of a new issue. What has been accomplished in our 
foreign intercourse, — is the question upon which he challenges 
discussion. He has selected his ground, and thrown down his 
gauntlet. It was immediately taken up by the gentleman from 
Kentucky, (Mr Clay,) who^ at once, briefly, but satisfactorily, 
exhibited the superiority of our former executive. We are called 
upon to pursue the subject farther, and I shall do so by advanc- 
ing, at once, to what its friends have proclaimed, as the proudest 
of their diplomatic achievements, the triumjjh which has been 
trumpeted, echoed, and reechoed, from the ocean to the mountains, 
the arrangement of the Colonial Trade with Great Britain. This 
exploit has enveloped this Administration in such a blaze of glory, 
that it may be thought to require the hardihood of the Fire King 
himself to approach its flames ; but the breath, by which it has 
been fanned, has too little of vitality to impart either intensity or 
duration. The note of exultation, which was raised, lost much of 
its eflect upon reflecting minds, when it was perceived that these 
praises were rung in advance, before the work was seen or its char- 



^08 COLONIAL TKADE. 

actcr known ; and, of course, were to be deemed only as incense to 
its authors. Intbrmation that some agreement had been concluded 
reached this country on the third of October, 1830. Immediately 
the loud acclaim of triumph was reverberated to the extremities of 
the Union. But the terms and conditions of the arrangement 
could not be ascertained for months afterwards. Indeed, the 
British Order in Council did not issue until November, and 
the communications containing the agreement were never submitted 
to the public until the month of January following. Nay, so 
little solicitous were many, as to the characler of the agreement, 
that they not only never examined it, but knew not iu what docu- 
ments it was to be found. Even dm ing the present winter, leading, 
important public journals, and among them the Richmond Enquirer, 
have demanded, why did the Senate ratify the treaty under Mr. 
Van Buren's objectionable instructions ? Again, the Trenton 
Emporium asserts that the treaty Avas unanimously ratified by the 
Senate, and this language is copied into the paper here, at the 
seat of government, and diffused throughout the country ; while 
we all know that no treaty ever existed, the arrangement having 
been formed by dijjlomatic letters, which were not submitted for 
the approbation of the Senate. 

I regret to say, that the delusion, thus propagated, is likely to 
be strengthened by a letter, recently published, under the signature 
of the President of the United States, in relation to the vote of the 
Senate upon the nomination of Mr. Van Buren in which he says, 
that the negotiation, which had been successfully terminated, had 
previously received the sanction of both Houses of Congress. 
What must be the surprise of the people, when they learn the 
fact, that, since the termination of that negotiation, there has been 
no vote, no action upon, no sanction of it, by either House of Con- 
gress ! 

If reference was had to the Act of May, 1830, it should be 
recollected that its passage was anterior to the conclusion of that 
negotiation, and its provisions were so entirely independent of 
prior instructions, that every member might have voted for the 
foinu-r, while he condemned the latter j that there was, indeed, no 
reference to them, either in the Act itself, or the rejwrt ot any 
committee. 

The same letter attributes the action of the Senate to motives 
"for interrupting an important foreign negotiation." I shall make 



COLONIAL TRADE. 209 

no comment upon tlie indignity thus offered to a branch of the 
National Legislature, unprecedented and unparalleled as it is, in 
the history of this Government. I leave it to the Senate and to 
the People. 

The President's communication indulges not a little in self- 
glorification, at having closed a contest, "which had been carried on 
ever since our national existence. But how has it been terminated ? 
By a glorious triumph or an inglorious surrender ? — By a victory 
or a defeat ? — That is the question. 

Mr. Herries, in the British Parliament, after describing it as one 
of the longest and most interesting of national controversies, 
announced that it had been brought to a close, and that " America 
had entirely and unconditionally withdrawn all her pretensions." 

This language aroused within me indignant American feelings. 
What — this commercial warfare, waged in our infancy, in weak- 
ness and depression — persevered in with firmness, to years of 
strength and manhood — and now, in our high and palmy state, 
terminated by an unconditional surrender. I could not believe it. 
It must be the arrogant assumption of a vaunting minister of Britain. 
In other contests, those of arms, her commanders had represented 
disaster, as success ; defeat, as triumph. She had, in mimic war, 
upon the Serpentine Piver, exhibited, as a holiday show, the sur- 
render of American to British ships ; while we, in fierce encounter, 
upon the Lakes and upon the Ocean, had presented to the world 
the spectacle of the proud cross of St. George bowing in submis- 
sion to the glorious star-spangled banner. 

As I then turned with joy to American authority, to correct the 
misrepresentations of our enemies, so I now reverted with hope to 
our own envoy, to examine the representations which he had made 
at the Court of St. James. I found, sir, that he presented to Lord 
Aberdeen our statute of 1830, as the basis of an arrangement. I 
was anxious to learn what was his construction of its provisions, 
his conception of its scope, and the spirit in which was to be exer- 
cised the discretion, vested by the American Congress, to vindicate 
our interests and our honor. I was astonished — I was humiliated, 
to find that, upon its presentation to the British Government, he 
characterized it in the following language : — " It concedes in its 
terms all the power in the regulation of the Colonial Trade, and 
authorizes the President to confer on British vessels all those 
privileges, as well in the circuitous as the direct voyage, which 
14 



210 COLONIAL TRADE. 

Great Britain has at any time demanded or desired ; " and that 
^Ir. Hcrries had, in effect, but repeated the declarations of onr own 
Minister. Still I would not despair, but turned with hope to the 
aiTangement itself, trusting that its terms and conditions had not 
been fairly delineated in that sweeping concession of our Agent. 

This examination, to be thorough, must necessarily be laborious, 
and I have no inducement to pursue it, except the importance of 
the subject to the country at large, and especially to my own State. 
Maine, with less then a thirtieth of the population, has about one- 
eighth of the tonnage of the United States. Indeed there are but 
two States that exceed her in amount, and those the powerful and 
ancient commonwealths, of Massachusetts and New York ; and, 
while they have other paramount manufactures, her navigation is 
the great interest most likely to be seriously affected by the 
national counsels, and to which, therefore, her representatives 
should at all times be studiously attentive. 

Mr. President : For what was this contest originally waged and 
so long maintained ? What was its object? The prize contended 
for ? I answer, distinctly and emphatically, the carrying trade ; 
and that alone. The British have always been not only willing, 
but anxious, for our produce, if it could be transported in their 
ships. Indeed, the decrees of nature, their climate and geograph- 
ical position, and their artificial institutions, particularly that of 
involuntary servitude, carried to such an enormous extent that 
more than seven-eighths of the whole population are slaves, render 
them essentially dependent upon the productions of the United 
States for their prosperity, if not for their existence. All experi- 
ence has shoMn that they must have our sup])lies. Not less than 
fifteen thousand persons died of famine, in the island of Jamaica 
alone, during the five years that followed the peace of 1783, owing 
to British regulations embarrassing the transmission of our produce. 
And it is most curious and instructive to observe that, whenever 
we have restrained or interrupted this intercourse, they have been 
compelled, in order to open new channels, in which it might How 
to their rcJief, to relax the rigor of their colonial system, which 
utterly excluded American vessels. In December, 1808, we laid 
an universal embargo ; and, in June following. Great Britain 
opened the ports of their Northern Provinces to our vessels. In 
1812, we declared war, and forthwith she opened to us the island 
of Bermuda, thus allowing to our navigation, ^flo-nm^c hello, that 



COLONIAL TRADE. 211 

trade which she refused in time of peace. After the treaty of 
1815, she again resorted to her system of rigorous colonial occlu- 
sion, and we, by the act of April, 1818, retaliated by the exclusion 
of her vessels from the trade so prohibited to us ; and immediately 
on the eighth and twenty -seventh of May following, she, by act 
of Parliament and order in Council, opened the ports of Halifax, 
in Nova Scotia, and St. Johns, in New Brunswick, to American 
vessels. 

In addition to these illustrations of their necessities, it should 
be remembered that, during the whole period of these restrictions 
and prohibitions, from the adoption of the Constitiition to the 
present day, the Governors of the different islands have, from time 
to time, been compelled to open their ports by special proclamation 
to the vessels of the United States with American produce. 
These dispensations have not been rare, but frequent, repeated and 
reiterated, owing to periodical convulsions of nature, and other 
causes. 

Indeed we have had a recent instance. During the last season, 
the island of Barbadoes, in particular, was visited by a hurricane, 
leaving such destruction and desolation in its path, that it was 
necessary to invite timely relief by all practicable means, and, in 
accordance with former usage, the British laws imposing duties 
and charges upon American lumber and certain other articles in 
American vessels, M^ere suspended until the first of March last. 

This temporary dispensation of onerous imposition deserves the 
more particular notice, because the success of certain voyages, 
consequent upon it, has been most erroneously attributed to the 
recent diplomatic arrangement, thereby extending a delusive idea 
of its benefits, when the hurricane itself might as well be ascribed 
to its influence. Indeed, our vessels would have derived greater 
advantage from that dispensation of Providence, and consequent 
relaxation of British law, if the arrangement had never been made ; 
because, under it, British vessels participated in the transportation, 
while, without it, ours alone would have enjoyed it to the exclusion 
of all others. This will be readily understood when \t is recol- 
lected that, before this agreement was concluded, the legislation 
of the tM^o countries reciprocally excluded the vessels of each from 
the waters of the other. These gubernatorial proclamations and 
dispensations of British laws opened their ports temporarily to us, 
but could not suspend our inhibition of British vessels. With 



212 COLONIAL TRADE. 

the West India colonies of other nations, Swedish, Danish, French, 
Dutch, and Spanish, we have long enjoyed without controversy, a 
free and uninterrupted commerce ; they being content, that the 
transportation should be almost exclusively in American vessels, 
as the legitimate fruits of our nautical enterprise, and geographical 
position ; of which Great Britain alone seeks to deprive us. And 
this she does in accordance with the two great leading features and 
objects of her navigation system, commenced by the Rump Parlia- 
ment, confirmed in the reign of Charles the Second, and extended 
and perpetuated by numerous subsequent enactments, viz., first, 
to strengthen herself by monopolizing as much of the carrying 
trade of the world as possible ; secondly, to weaken her rivals by 
diffusing the residue among the minor maritime powers, so as to 
prevent any one from engrossing any considerable portion of it. 
And of all nations, the United States is the rival in navigation and 
maritime power, whom she most dreads, and is most anxious to 
depress.* 

The great commercial statesman of Great Britain, (Mr. Huskis- 
son,) has declared that the first blow to her policy was given by 
the United States. And it is true. We struck the first blow to 
her colonial system, by our Declaration of Independence ; the 
first blow to her navigating policy, by countervailing laws ; and 
the blow which dissolved the charm of her boasted invincibility 
upon the ocean, by the splendid and transcendent triumphs of the 
late war. In this, our long, i)rotracted contest for the carrying 
trade, she has been stimulated by the double motive of extending 
her own shipping interest and repressing ours. It was commenced 
immediately after the acknowledgment of our Independence ; and 
was animadverted upon, in the Continental Congress of 1784, as a 
cause for conferring additional powers upon the Confederation, in 
order to maintain it on our part with success. In the first Congress, 
in 1789, Mr. Madison declared, that he would meet interdict with 
interdict, " until we should be allowed to carry to the A^ est India 
Islands, in our own vessels, the produce of America, which neces- 
sity compels them to take." And President Washington, in his 
instructions to Mr. ^Morris in the same year, says emphatically, 
" Let it be strongly impressed on your mind, that the privilege of 
carrying our own j)roductions in our own vessels to their own 

• See Huskisson's Speeches. 



COLOXIAL TRADE. 213 

islands, and bringing in return the productions of these islands to 
our own ports and market, is i egarded here as of the highest 
importance ] and you will be careful not to countenance any idea 
of our dispensing with it in a treaty." 

The Twelfth Article of Jay's Treaty, which related to the colonial 
trade, was expunged by the Senate as utterly inadmissible. To 
this succeeded the wars of the French Revolution, followed by 
hostile orders in council, injurious decrees, and illegal practices, 
harassing to our commerce, and destructive of our rights, and pro- 
ducing on our part non-intercourse, embargo and war. The peace 
with Great Britain was followed by the celebrated commercial con- 
vention of 1815. And the colonial trade was in express terms 
excluded from its operation. 

Immediately thereupon. Great Britain closed against us, those 
ports in the West Indies, which had been opened to our vessels 
during the war ; thereby endeavoring not only to monopolize to 
herself the carriage to the colonies, but also to secure a decisive 
advantage, in the direct trade, with the British European posses- 
sions, by means of the triangular voyage, by which she attained a 
triple freight ; one from Great Britain to the United States, another 
from hence to the "West Indies, and a third thence to England ; 
whereas, before, she could enjoy but one, that of the ponderous and 
bulky produce from the sugar colonies to the parent country ; her 
ships being compelled to sail in the outward voyage in ballast only. 
Measures of counteraction were immediately resorted to in pur- 
suance of the suggestions of Mr. Madison's message of December 
1816. Negotiations were attempted in 1817, 1818, 1819, 1824, 
and 1826, without success. Both countries had recourse to sep- 
arate and counteractive legislation, the United States by the stat- 
utes of 1817, 1818, 1820, 1822, and 1823 ; and Great Britain by 
Acts of Parliament of 1822 and 1825 ; interspersed occasionally 
by Royal orders in coiuicil, and Presidential proclamations ; until 
the trade was interdicted by each, in the vessels of the other, 
through their order in council cf 1826, and the President's proc- 
lamation of 1827, issued in obedience to the express requirement 
of the acts of Congress. These prohibitions continued until the 
arrangement of Mr. McLane, in 1830. Whoever will read this 
part of our legislative and diplomatic history with attention, will 
perceive that the great paramount object, for which the i^arties 
were contending, and which they kept constantly in view, was the 



214 COLOXIAL TRADE. 

carrying trade ; the British struggling to secure undue advantages 
to their shipping, and we demanding a participation upon equal 
terms. 

All their devices, expedients and propositions, when rightly 
understood in their practical operation, will be found to have been 
adapted to this end. KnoAving that we never M'ould consent to 
their monopolizing the direct transportation, tlieii' purpose was to 
give the trade a circuitous diiection through their northern 
provinces ; or the island of Bermuda, near our coast ; in British 
vessels, to the exclusion of American. To accomplish this, they 
at first, in 1817, proposed to reserve to themselves the right to 
vary their imposts upon our productions, at pleasure, in different 
colonies, so that the same articles might be made to pay a higher 
rate of duty when transported directly in an American bottom, than 
when circuitously in a British. This we firmly and decisively 
resisted, and the British, in the negotiations of 1818, expressly and 
unqualifiedly abandoned it. It Avas relinquished, too, by acts of 
Parliament of 1S22 and 1825, and never renewed until the nego- 
tiations of Mr. McLane, in 1830. We at one time insisted that our 
produce should not"be taxed higher in the West India Islands, 
than similar articles, the productions of the Northern provinces, 
or other British dominions. This has been denominated the 
" elscAvhere " principle, Avhich Avas incorporated into the act of 
1823 ; but Avhich Avas subsequently Avaived by our government in 
1826. 

The next expedient Avas to make an enumeration of certain 
articles to be carried to the West Indies ; another and longer list 
to be transported to Beimuda ; and yet another, more important, 
to be admitted to their northern provinces only. In this, Ave could 
not acquiesce, and occlusion of the ports Avas the consequence. 
They Avere opened by the agreement of 1830. 

AVhat are the terms and conditions of that arrangement ? What 
poAver does it concede to Great Britain ? — And first as to the — 

TUANSPOHTATION OF AMF-UICAN TRODrCE TO THE AVKST INDIES. 

The British have the power to impose duties without limitation 
upon American jiroductions ; to vary the same at pleasure in every 
Colony, assessing different amounts in different ports ; and, Avhen 
once received, to naturalize and treat them as their own, in sub- 



COLONIAL TRADE. 215 

sequent transitions ; and their vessels have the whole transportation 
from Colony to Colony, the American being utterly excluded. 

Thus, upon a barrel of flour, passing from the United States to 
the West Indies, may be imposed a duty of one dollar, or a thou- 
sand dollars ; while the same may be carried to the northern 
provinces of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, and be there 
received without impost, and thence imported to the West Indies 
duty free. And so of every other article. The consequence is, 
that an American vessel, laden at any -port in the United States, 
with fl.our or any other produce, destined for the West Indies, 
whatever be her route, and at whatever places she may have touchedj 
must, at her port of discharge, pay the whole amount of duties 
"which the British please to require, whether it be one or one hun- 
dred thousand dollars ; whilst a British vessel, with the same 
cargo, by merely touching, and taking a clearance, at Campo-Bello 
or Halifax, may be wholly exempted from duties on her arrival in 
the West Indies. 

By the unrestrained use of this instrument, the graduation of 
duties, the British may, as with a magic wand, direct, change, or 
stop the current of trade at pleasure ; they have as complete con- 
trol over it as of water from the reservoir conducted through arti- 
ficial tubes, to which they alone have the keys. Do they wish to 
stop the direct trade as to all articles in American vessels ? — erect 
an impassable barrier of duties upon everything ? Do they wish 
to cause the current to flow, in British bottoms, by the way of 
New Brunswick or Nova Scotia? Remove the obstruction of 
imposts, in that direction only, and its course will run freely. Or 
they may allow a part to pass in one direction, and force the res- 
idue in another. They may select a list of articles for the West 
Indies, another for Bermuda, and another for the Northern 
Provinces. This power is full, complete, and unlimited. We 
may be assured that they will exercise it, from time to time, as 
experience of their interests may dictate, and as our endurance 
shall tolerate. Sir, they have begun to exercise it already, by the 
Act of Parliament of 22d of April, 1831, the design of which 
cannot be misunderstood. Under its enactments, wheat-flour, 
beef, pork, hams, bacon, wood, and lumber, when imported into 
the West Indies, through their Northern Provinces, and of course 
in British vessels, pay no duty ; M'hile the same articles, by other 
acts, when passing directly from the United States, in which alone 



216 COLONIAL TRADE. 

our vessels can participate, are oppressed with imposts, as follows : 
flour, five sliillings steiling the barrel ; beef and pork, twelve 
shillings sterling the hundred weight ; wood and lumber, one 
pound eight shillings the thousand feet. The same act of 1831 
has imposed additional duties, in the direct trade, upon staves and 
headings from seven shillings three pence to eleven shillings three 
pence ; and, upon white or yellow pine lumber, from five shillings 
to seven shillings sterling. 

We see the effects, even in the short time which has already 
elapsed, and they will become more and more alarming by future 
developments. 

The trade, instead of being direct in American bottoms, as it 
ought to be, is circuitous in British, as it ought not to be Look 
at the official document just laid upon our table, which presents 
statements for the year next following the arrangement, during 
which our exports to the British American Colonies on our bor- 
ders, were in value, ^4,060,896 ; and our imports from the same 
only ,^864,189, while, to British West Indies, our exports were 
only $1,441,700, and our imports $1,284,678. The great mass 
of these exports to the Northern Provinces was cai'ried thence in 
British vessels to the West Indies, or other distant possessions of 
Great Britain, for which they were originally destined. And, 
even in the short voyage, from the United States to the adjacent 
provinces, separated from us only by an imaginary line, the Brit- 
ish tonnage has exceeded the American, the former being 83,055, 
and the latter but 66,805. 

But, if the present enactments should not accomplish all their 
puiposes against our navigation, they may increase the disparity, 
and enhance their advantages at pleasure : the whole magazine of 
legislation is open for the selection of tlu-ir weapons of attack, 
while we have laid down our arms, and diverted ourselves of the 
panoply of defence. 

And what aggravates still more these bitter fiuits of our recent 
diplomacy, is the fact that we have, heretofore, not only sternly 
refused to permit our opponents to hold this controlling power, of 
taxing our produce higher in the direct than in the circuitous 
voyage, but the British themselves, in the negotiations of 1818, 
unqualifiedly surrendered it, and never presumed to claim it after- 
wards, until it was conceded to them in this arrangement. 

How can this sudden submission, to a long-abandoned Thitisli 



COLONIAL TRADE. 217 

pretension, be accounted for ? Only by the eagerness of our nego- 
tiators to swallow any thing and every thing that was baited with 
the name of arrangement. This recklessness was so great that our 
minister at London did not even read the negotiation of 1818 ; 
which followed our act of that year, accompanied the renewal of 
the Convention of 1815, and were so important, that tvro nego- 
tiators, on our part, Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Rush, were associated ; 
and in which the British made this unqualified abandonment ; 
nay, he did not even possess the documents wdiich contained them, 
although they had been printed for more than seven years. We 
learn this from his own letter of the fourteenth of March, 1831. 

Sir, we not only refused to permit our produce to be taxed 
higher in the direct, than in the circuitous voyage, but we at one 
time insisted that it should be subject to no higher duties than 
similar articles, the productions of their own dominions. This 
latter has been denominated the " elsewhere " principle, and has 
been attempted to be confounded with the former, from which it is 
widely different. It was incorporated into the act of 1823, by the 
use of the word " elsewhere," was insisted upon in Mr. Rush's 
negotiations of 1824, upon which point alone they broke off, and 
was subsequently waived through Mr. Gallatin, in 1826. But the 
principle that our produce should be taxed no more directly than 
circuitously, that is, when transported in our own vessels, than 
when in British botto;i:s, has never before been, for a moment, 
yielded by us, but was expressly conceded by Great Britain, not 
only in the protocols and basis of 1818, but her acts of Parliament 
of 1822, and the still more celebrated one of 1825. 

But Mr. McLane, to console us for this unlimited concession of 
power, says, that we have " a safe guarantee against an excessive " 
exercise of it. 

In what does it consist ? Where is it to be found ? In the inter- 
est of Great Britain alone ! " The increase of duties," says he, 
" will fall upon the planter." And is this an argument to be ad- 
dressed to freemen ? Might not the slave say, It is for the interest 
of my master to treat me kindly ? But who would therefore sub- 
mit to uncontrolled dominion ? The interests of Great Britain ! 
What are they ? Her darling, primary interest is to depress our 
marine, and elevate her own. " In commerce, in navigation, in 
naval power, and maritime pretensions, (says Mr. Huskisson,) the 
United States are our most formidable rival." The present 



218 COLONIAL TRADE. 

Secretary of State would have told him, as he did in 1827, that, 
** provided the islands could get supplies, England cared not for 
what price, so it were a means of increasing her navigation." * * 
" This being the avowed policy of Great Britain, the questiota. is, 
(says Mr. Livingston,) Mhether we shall play into her hands." 
" Yes," says ^Ir. McLane, " because of this * safe guarantee,' the 
interests of the planters ! " But where is even this miserable secu- 
rity, when we see that, however enormous the duties in the direct, 
they may be nothing in the circuitous trade, and when we know, 
too, that the imposts are paid into the colonial treasury, for the 
benefit of the planters themselves ? 

I turn now, sir, to another description of merchandise — 

FOREIGN PRODUCTIONS. 

How stands the arrangement as to them ? 

Do the vessels of the two countries enjoy equal rights and 
equal privileges ? Sir, will it be credited, by the people of this 
country, that, as to the whole class of foreign articles, British 
vessels may take all of them at pleasure from the United States, to 
the colonics, while an American vessel is absolutely prohibited 
from transporting any ? A British and an American ship shall be 
lying side by side in the port of Xew York, for example ; the 
former may make up an assorted cargo of American produce, and 
debenture goods of all kinds ; while, if the latter take a single 
article, beside our own productions, she is liable to seizure and 
condemnation the moment she enters British waters ! 

Need I dwell upon the advantages which tliis concession gives 
to our rivals ? The importance of the privilege of assorted car- 
goes, in the West India trade, is understood by every merchant's 
clerk who has ever entered a counting-room. Mr. McLane himself 
acknowledged it in 1830, when he declared that the trade through 
the Northern colonies was diverted into that channel, instead of 
the neutral islands, by the greater facilities of making up " assorted 
cargoes." It moreover yields to our rival new advantages in the 
triple voyage. English vessels may now take a cargo from Great 
Britain to the United States ; sell the whole or a part only here, 
as the state of the market may invite ; fill up either with American 
or foreign productions ; proceed to the West Indies ; sell the 
whole or a apiut only there, as interest may dictate ; take on 



COLONIAL TRADE. 219 

board colonial produce or other merchandise ; and sail for Great 
Britain or her dominions ; while an American ship, starting from 
the same point, is at liberty indeed to take a cargo from England 
to the United States, but not to carry one article of that cargo, or 
of any other foreign merchandise, to the West Indies, nor to 
transport any thing from the colonies to Great Britain. 

How far this advantage may enable our rival to overpower our 
navigation, in a competition for the direct trade, remains to be de- 
"veloped by experience. If the result should be decisive in their 
favor, and their navigation can monopolize the whole directly, they 
may not exercise the power they possess to force it through other 
channels ; for their object will have been attained. They can try 
this experiment with safety ; for, if they do not succeed, resort 
may be had to their full power of substituting the circuitous 
transportation. 

The quantity of foreign goods which would be shipped to the 
British West Indies in an open commerce, is not inconsiderable. 
The actual amount cannot be accurately ascertained by reason of 
past restrictions and embarrassments. To the Danish islands we 
sent alien merchandise. In the year 1829, to the value of $282, 
401, and in 1830, of $220,723 ; and to Cuba, in the same years, 
$1,859,626, and $1,477,675 ; to which island the amount, in other 
years, has considerably exceeded two millions. What apology 
does our negotiator offer for yielding this discrimination in favor 
of British ships ? He says, " I am not aware, that the restriction 
of the right of importation into the colonies, to articles of American 
produce, was at any period seriously objected to by our Govern- 
ment." True, sir, provided British vessels were also so restricted. 
We have uniformly insisted upon equality in navigation — the 
vessels of both to be confined to the same commodities ; and the 
British have not, in our former negotiations, had the effrontery to 
ask for this gross and palpable partiality in favor of their naviga- 
tion. In the negotiations of 1818, at the fifth conference, they 
offered a project, stipulating, that British and American vessels 
should have equal rights of importation from the United States 
into the West India islands, and confining both to the same articles, 
the produ.ce and manufacture of the United States. Our envoy ought 
to have understood, that it was not the restriction of our ships to 
our goods merely, but the greater liberty allowed to the British, 
the injurious difference that we should earnestly resist. As matter 



OOQ COLOXIAL TRADE. 

of^fixed principle, we should never, for an instant, tolerate an 
invidious distinction in favor of a foreign against our own flag. 

But our negotiator thought otherMise. He says, that " the dif- 
ference, in this respect, between the American and British vessels," 
if we allow it to continue, " cannot be an object of much impor- 
tance in any point of view." It will generally be our interest, as 
it is that of every other nation, to allow the exportation of its sur- 
plus foreign produce in the vessels of any other country." Aye, 
and to confine such exports to foreign bottoms, in exclusion of 
our own ? Is this for interest ? And is it not still more for our 
interest to send our own produce to a market, than that of foreign- 
ers, and of course to consent that alien ships alone should transport 
it ? What a conception does this exhibit of the great navigating 
interest of the country, and of the spirit and object of our whole 
debenture system ! Why do we encourage the importation and 
exportation of foreign goods by the benefit of drawback ? Is it not 
to give employment to our navigators, ship owners, and merchants ? 

But, sir, the gravest, and most solemn ground of complaint 
against this discrimination in favor of British vessels still remains. 
It is the — 

^^OLATION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF 1830. 

By the first section, the President is authorized to issue his 
proclamation, repealing our Acts of 1818, 1820, and 1823, and 
opening our ports upon certain conditions, and upon those con- 
ditions only. One of them is in these words : — " That the vessels 
of the United States may import into the said colonial possessions, 
from the Ignited States, any article or articles, which could be 
imported in British vessels into the said possessions, from the 
United States." 

Now, sir, so fiir from there being any evidence that an American 
could import every article which a British vessel might, the proof 
was plenary, as we all well know, that the whole class of foreign 
goods are prohibited in the former, and allowed in the latter. 

Here is the law, and here stands the fact. Ingenuity cannot 
evade, and T doubt whether effrontery can deny, their incompati- 
bility. 

This modification of the Act, this executive repeal of one of its 
clear and positive provisions, has been called cdiistn/dion ! And 



COLONIAL TRADE. 221 

let us see the reasons which have been assigned for such a stretch 
of power. I will examine them all. They are embodied in the 
President's Message of January, 1831, in Avhich he says he does 
not sujjpose " that the omissiun to restrict, in terms, the importa- 
tions to the productions of the country to which the vessels respect- 
ively belong, was intentional," for three reasons. 

Here, it seems, the President was advised that there was an 
omission in the Act, and he imdertook to supply it by imposing 
restrictions Avhich confessedly Congress had not, and assigns his 
reasons for this assumption of legislative power. First, that this 
enactment is inconsistent with " the propositions previously made 
by this Government, to that of Great Britain, and A^hich were 
before Congress at the time of the passage of the Act." The 
fact of such inconsistency does not exist. But suppose it did. Is 
it to be tolerated that, if we make a law at variance with presiden- 
tial recom:f.endations, and send it to him to be executed, he shall 
alter, change and modify, till it conforms to his own preexisting 
views ? Wh)' might he not as well have made the law without 
our intervention ? Why send his propositions here, if Congress 
are not to be supposed capable of dissenting from them ? 

The second reason is, that it is at variance with " the principles 
which govern the maritime legislation of the two countries." 
What ! requiring that our vessels should not be subject to an 
injurious distinction in aid of the foreign, incompatible with former 
laws, when we all know that the object and aim of all those enact- 
ments was to give advantages to our own over their rivals ? And 
there is not, in our whole history, a single enactment that counte- 
nances this partiality to alien ships. But if there were, could we 
never change it l And if the National Legislature should pass an 
act to destroy previous inequality, is the President to refuse to 
execute it, because it is a new law ? But it is not in accordance 
with British legislation ! Indeed ! and is an American Chief 
Magistrate to make a statute of the American Congress bend and 
break before an act of the Imperial Parliament ? These two rea- 
sons, if reasons they can be called, are the same as were assigned 
by Mr. McLane to the late Secretary of State. 

But the writer of the message has discovered another, entirely 
new, that had never even occurred to our negotiator. It is, that 
this enactment, as to the transportation to the West Indies, is 
inconsistent with " the provisions of the existing commercial treaty " 



222 COLONIAL TR.ADE. 

■with England ! That convention not only does not embrace any 
part of the Colonial Trade, but, in express terms, Avholly excludes 
it.* But suppose the fact were otherwise. The President is 
authorized to issue his proclamations when a certain condition shall 
have been previously performed; he thinks such performance 
incompatible with a treaty. What is he to do ? Issue his procla- 
mation in despite of the condition, and as if it never existed ? 
Assume an absolute authority which has never been conferred ? 
No, but assign that as a reason for not issuing the proclamation. 

Mr. Van Buren, also, has assigned a reason, or apology, for 
disregarding this enactment. That I may be sure to do him no 
injustice, I will quote his very words, from the letter of fifth 
October, 1830, in which he transmits the proclamation, assures 
INIr. McLane that the '^ constrvction " of Lord Aberdeen and him- 
self has been " adopted without reserve," and adds — 

"The President has derived great satisfaction from the candor and 
liberality which has characterized the conduct of His Majesty's Ministers, 
throuiihout the negotiation, and particularly in not suffering the inadver- 
tencies of our legislation, attributable to the haste and confusion of the 
closing scenes of the session, to defeat or delay the adjustment," etc. etc. ; 
and he is subsequently directed "to make His Majesty's Government 
aquaintod with these sentiments." 

" Inadvertencies ! " — What should we say if the Judiciary had 
dared to set aside a law, on the assumption that Congress knew 
not what they were about when it passed ? Inadvertencies ! Yet 
this provision was in the bill of 1827, which passed the House of 
Representatives, is the same as Mr. ^Madison's proposition in 1790, 
and Mr. Clay's construction in 1820, and was contained in this 
Act of 1830, when originally reported by Mr. Cambreleng, and 
which ^Ir. A'an Buren himself, when communicating it to Mr. 
^McLane, in June, 1830, characterized as a " solemn public move- 
ment on our part ; " yet, afterwards, lays the same at the foot of 
the British throne, thanking His ^lajesty for concurring in a dis- 
regard of its enactment, and offering, in excuse for its " inadver- 
tencies," " the haste and confusion " of the National Legislature. 
What language is this for an American statesman, and what a pic- 
ture is here to be exhibited to the eye of British royalty, of the 
dignity and deliberation of a Republican — an American Congress ! 

• See Article Second of the Convention, which is direct and unequivocal. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 223 

Thank Heaven, it has no precedent or parallel in our history. I 
will do Mr. INIcLane the justice to say, that he did not exhibit to 
the English Government its most offensive j)arts ; his own feelings 
must have recoiled at being the medium of such a communication. 
Having considered the power, which our rival possesses to con- 
trol the exports in the Colonial Trade, I will now examine it as to 
the imports ; and, first, of — 

WEST INDIA PRODUCE. 

The British have the power, by laying export duties in the 
islands and varying them at pleasure, to give such a direction to 
the transmission of their productions, as experience of their inter- 
ests may dictate. They may erect an insuperable barrier of such 
duties in the direct trade to the United States, in •which alone our 
vessels can participate, and leave it free and unobstructed in Brit- 
ish vessels, by the circuitous route of the Northern Provinces ; 
for it is to be kept in remembrance, that an American bottom is 
not permitted to carry their produce from colony to colony. Such 
export duties have heretofore existed in some of the colonies. 
This right was formerly refused to Great Britain, by the adminis- 
tration of Mr. Monroe ; and the Acts of 1820 and 1823 guarded 
against it, by requiring importations of colonial produce to be 
direct from the island of which it was the growth. 

PLAISTER OF PARIS. 

The trade in this article has been of much importance to INIaine. 
It is dug from the earth in the Provinces, and from 100,000 to 
150,000 tons are annually imported into the United States, giving 
employment to a large amount of tonnage, which we have hereto- 
fore enjoyed, almost exclusively, but which, under this arrange- 
ment, the British can, at their option, entirely monoplize. The 
contrivance, by which this is to be accomplished, is simple, but 
effectual. To give a show^ of reciprocity, our vessels are admitted 
into the Provinces ; but then they are restricted to what are called 
free ports, such as Halifax, St. Johns, and St. Andrews ; while 
British vessels are subject to no such limitation, but are at liberty to 
go to all others. The places at which the j)laister is dug, are not 
at the free ports, and their vessels may take it from the quarries. 



224 COLONIAL TRADE. 

and transport it to any part of the I'nited States ; while, to reach 
our vessels, it must first be carried to the free ports, at an expense 
of $lo to $100 the ton, and there be unladen and rc-shipped. Let 
me illustrate this. We have, at Ilallowell, in Maine, quarries of 
the finest building material in the world — beautiful, ever-enduring 
granite. Suppose, sir, — what, fortunately, is not true — but imag- 
ine that the Provinces were our only market, as the United States 
is for their plaister ; and that, to give the British a color of equal- 
ity in the transportation, we should say, Your vessels may take 
this granite, but you shall not go to llalloAvell — you shall not en- 
ter the Kennebec Iviver. You must seek for it at I'ortsmouth, 
Portland or Wiscasset, while we will take it direct to any and all 
your ports. Would a British vessel ever transport a single cargo ? 
Yet such is the advantage Mhich we have conceded to them, as to 
gypsum, an article of which the freight exceeds the original value 
at the quarries, which indeed would be utterly worthless, if we 
did not become the purchasers, and which they have, therefore, at 
former periods, permitted to be transported wholly in American 
vessels. 

The same remarks are applicable, in substance, to the trade in 
grindstones. 

Such is the power which this arrangement concedes to Britain, in 
the exportation to her colonies of American and foreign goods, and 
the importation of West Indian and provincial produce. It is full 
and complete, to the entire control of the navigation. How fiir 
she may carry the exercise of it, M'ill depend upon our endurance. 
She will stretch the cord until there is danger of disruption. So 
long as we acquiesce, she will continue to advance ; and therefore 
I now raise me voice against it. This veiy discussion may arrest 
her progress, or, at least, cause her to pause. She has already 
begun to use the lever which we put into her haiuls, and we sec 
its effects. 

In all competition with foreign navigation, upon equal terms, it 
is known that our industry, economy, skill and enterprise, have 
given us decisive superiority. In the direct trade with Great 
Britain, we have had more than four-fifths of the transportation, 
and a still greater proportion in our commerce with other nations. 
I hold in my hand a most instructive document, which I have 
prepared, to exliibit the ])roportion of American, British and foreign 
tonnage, in our external trade, from the years 1789 to 1830, inclu- 



COLONIAL TRADE. 225 

sive ; by -which may be seen, at a glance as at a thermometer, the 
elevation and depression of our navigation, and the effects of the 
comparative advantages which it enjoyed. In the most disastrous 
periods, at the commencement of the Government during the late 
war, and subsequently while the English were enjoying the fruits of 
the triangular voyage, the proportion of foreign to domestic tonnage 
never exceeded forty -five and a half of the former, to one hundred 
of the latter — i. e. less than forty-six per cent.; while, in our 
prosperity, it was frequently less than ten per cent. In our West 
India trade, the disproportion has been still greater, for the obvious 
reasons of our vicinage, the remoteness of the parent countries, 
and the inaptitude of such a population as that of the Islands, to 
traversing the ocean. 

[Here Mr. Sprague presented two tabular Statements.] 
It thus appears that, from 1821 to 1830, inclusive, a term of 
ten years next preceding this arrangement, and from the fifth of 
October, 1830, to the 30th of Sej)tember, 1831, the year succeed- 
ing it, the average proportion of alien to American tonnage, in 
the Colonial Trade, was as follows : 



COUNTRIES. 


From 1821 to 1830, 


Foreign 


was to the 


In 1831, Foreign 


was 


to the American 


! 






American as 






as 




Swedish W. I 


3.72 to 100 less 


than 4 


per cent. 


7.84 to 100 more 


than 7 per ct. 


Danish W. I 


2.10 


(( 


<( 


3 


« 1 


8.90 


« 


8 « 


British W.I 


8.7 


(( 


(1 


9 


<< ! 


46.47 " 


« 


46 " 


Brit. Am. Col 


9.64 


« 


<( 


10 


« 1 


110.52 " 


<( 


110 « 


W. 1. generally... 


2.27 


« 


11 


3 


" 


2.62 " 


(( 


2 « 



What answer has been given to these appalling facts ? I will 
tell you ; for the (Secretary of the Treasury, in communicating this 
statement for 1831, seeing their force, has, in order to weaken it, 
sent us an extract from a letter of one of the Collectors of the 
Customs, in which it is stated that, from his port, a large "proportion 
of such American vessels as clear for the " West Indies generally," 
proceed in fact to the English Islands. Be it so. Nay, suppose 
that to have been the destination of all such American vessels, 
and not of any of the alien. Add all general clearances for the 
West Indies on our part, to those for the British Islands : How 
much does it vary the result ? 



15 



i226 COLOXIAL TRADE. 

The amount of tonnage employed in that year, 1831, -was — 

With British West Indies, 36,440 American. 16,037 Foreign. 

British American Colonies, 77,757 85,916 

West Indies generally, 14,9S7 say, 



129,164 102,853 

It will then be 102,853 British, to 129,164 American ; more 
than seventy-nine per cent. ; when, before the arrangement, the 
British had less than ten per cent. 

But it is said that, although there may have been this enormous 
growth of British tonnage, yet there has been an increase of 
ours also in this trade. It M'ould seem strange indeed, if, after 
opening the ports, no more of our vessels should go to them than 
previously, and during the state of general occlusion, especially 
when such a measure takes away from us the transportation to the 
neutral islands through which the supplies were before carried. 
And yet, for the same period of years, from 1821 to 1830 inclus- 
ive, during Avhich there was no arrangement, and embarrassed 
from time to time, by restrictions, counter legislation and pro- 
hibition, the average amount of American shipping in the trade 
with the English colonies Averc greater than in the year 1831, and 
the British much less — as follows : 



Arerage American toiinnde per annum, for ten y 
1821 to 1830. 


cars, 


1831. 






American. 


Foreign. 


American. 1 


Foreign. 


British West Indies 

British American Colonies,. . . 


50,07H 
77,492 


4,043 

7,407 


30,440 
77,737 


1(5,937 
8J,91G 


West Indies generally 


127,570 
H,o2G 


11,510 


114,I77j 
14,987 


102,So3 


1 


136,0961 


11,510 


129,164| 


102,853 



So that, for the loss of transportation to the neutral islands, we 
have not even the compensation of any positive increase of ton- 
nage to the liritish ports. And, of that which we have, more 
than two thirds, as appears by the above statement, is merely to 
the Northern Provinces on our borders. We lose the long freight 



COLONIAL TRADE. 007 

wliich we before enjoyed, and get a part only of tlie short which 
has been substituted, and even that portion will hereafter be dimin- 
ishing. That such was the former course of the trade, is univer- 
sally known. Indeed, I have such authority as will convince even 
the political advocates of the arrangement. 

In March, 1820, Mr. McLane said, the routes through which 
these supplies now pass comprehend not merely the northern pos- 
sessions, which have the solitary advantage of occasionally afford- 
ing a better assortment of goods ; but the islands of St. Thomas 
and St. Bartholomew, Martinique, Guadalouj)e, and the port of 
St. Jago de Cuba. 

And Mr. Van Buren, in 1829, declared of this trade, " It is 
carried on in American vessels by St. Barts and St. Thomas, and 
open ports in North Ainerican Colonies." x'lnd now, since the 
arrangement, it is prosecuted to great extent in British vessels, to 
whom we have yielded the means of monopolizing it entirely. 
Who Avill be benefited ? The producer ? Will it increase his 
market ? If it might, it would still be a miserable apology for 
this injury to the ship owner. Never, in the whole history of our 
country, was the idea tolerated, that our navigation should be sac- 
rificed in any event, or for any consideration. In 1818, the Com- 
mittee of the House who reported the law of that year sternly 
repelled such a suggestion. There can be no divorce of the 
great interests of the country. They are linked by indissoluble 
bands ; and injury to one is depression to all. 

But, as this is the only apology, or excuse, that can be offered, 
let us examine it for a moment. Will the markets for our prod- 
uce be increased ? How ? By what process ? Every thing 
which Great Britain can supply to her islands, either from the 
Northern Provinces, or any port of her dominions, she is resolved 
to furnish herself j this we know ; this she has avowed; it is her 
fixed policy. From us will be admitted only those indispensable 
necessaries which cannot be elsewhere obtained, consisting almost 
exclusively of provisions and lumber, and these she received before 
the arrangement ; partly through the neutral islands, and partly 
by her northern ports, to both which, our vessels had the exclus- 
ive carriage, it being utterly prohibited to the British. In what 
manner will they be transmitted under the arrangement ? Through 
her northern ports, still burthened by double freights and insur- 
ance. Is the route thus substituted less expensive than that ^yhich 



228 COLONIAI> TRADE. 

it has supplanted ? Even Mr. McLanc knew and asserted that It 
was not, and also declared that the portion of the trade Mhich 
sought the northern channels, instead of the neutral, was diverted 
there only by the greater facility for assorted cargoes ; and he 
added that the burdens of the indirect trade fell upon the planter. 
How then is his consumption, or our markets, to be increased by 
this substitution of the present circuitous route in British vessels 
for the former in American ? Indeed, so essential are our sup- 
plies, that a change from this indirect trade, when the ports were 
closed to the direct by opening them, does not seem, from past 
experience, to have materially affected the result. I hold in my 
hand two tabular statements, which exhibit this very clearly. 

[Mr. Sprague here presented two tabular Statements.] 

The first is compiled from official docimients, and the lattei", 
from the authority of our late minister to London. 

In this connection, I would notice an error, or deception, wliich 
has been industriously propagated. It has been represented, that 
our inland trade from New York, Vermont and Maine, to Can- 
ada and New Brunswick, had its origin, too, in this arrangement ; 
when we all know that it existed before, and was prosecuted with- 
out restraint ; that the restrictive and piohibitory laws were con- 
fined to the commerce " by sea," and reached not to that by land, 
lakes, or rivers. We further know, that it was the anxious desire 
of Great Britain to continue and extend it. Even Mr. Canning, 
in his bitterest mood, declared, that it was not her purpose to in- 
terupt it, and she did not. Indeed, so palpably for her interest, 
and in accordance with her policy is it, that it has been sometimes 
insisted that the United States ought to suppress it as a means of 
coercing Great Britain. The opening of this market, by internal 
communication with Quebec and New Brunswick, has been 
ascribed to jNIr. McLane's negotiation, with about the same pro- 
priety as were the effects of the hurricane in Barbadocs. 

There is yet another most grave and serious aspect of this sub- 
ject, that of oui- 

EXrOllTS TO AND IMl'OKTS FROM GllEAT liKlTAlN. 

Since the British have been permitted to take clearances from 
our ports for their northern provinces, under the recent agree- 
ment, that government has manifested a disposition to put in ope- 



COLONIAL TRADE. 229 

ration the same machinery of varying imposts in order to monop- 
olize the whole navigation between the United States and her 
European dominions. Since the arrangement, the duty upon cot- 
ton imported from the United States into England has been changed 
from an ad valorem of six per cent, to a specific of five-eighths of 
a penny per pound ; while from the provinces, the duty is but 
one twenty-fifth of a penny. The consequence is, that a British 
ship may load in the United States Avith our cotton, and, by touch- 
ing at Bermuda, Halifax, or any other colonial port, save in duties 
the difference between five-eighths and one twenty-fifth of a penny 
per pound, which is equal to a fair freight from Charleston to 
Liverpool. British ship owners have actually begun to take 
advantage of this discrimination. A letter from a respectable gen- 
tleman of Lubec in Maine, under date of the thirteenth of March 
last, informs me, that a merchant from New Brunswick has recently 
gone to Savannah for the avowed purpose of so employing his 
ship, and declaring that he would thereby have an advantage 
over the Americans of five shillings six pence sterling per hun- 
dred weight in the imposts ; and that it would amount to twelve 
hundred pounds upon a single cargo. This business must be 
arrested. If Great Britain has the right to make this discrimina- 
tion, she may vary and increase it without limitation, until the 
direct importation in American vessels is effectually suppressed, 
and the whole transferred to British bottoms by a circuitous route. 
And if she has this power over the transmission of our cotton to 
England, she has the same as to tobacco, rice, and all our ex- 
ports to all her dominions ; the transportation of which may, 
and, if unresisted, will be engrossed by foreign ships ; and the im- 
ports also. For she may, with the same propriety, by discrim- 
inating export duties, impose burdens upon the direct transmis- 
sion to the United States in our vessels, leaving them free to Brit- 
ish bottoms through her colonies. 

Here the important question arises. Can this be rightful!}^ done 
by Great Britain, or is it incompatible with the commercial con- 
vention which regulates the trade between this country and her 
European dominions ? I confess that to me it appears to be incon- 
sistent with a fair and just exposition of that instrument. But it 
seems that she does not so regard it. She claims the power, and 



230 COLONIAL TRADE. 

it does not appear that this administration has ever denied that 
she possesses it.* 

Mr. !McLane must have known that such were her pretensions, 
that she asserted the right to make these discriminations ; and yet, 
in this important arrangement, alloMing her vessels to clear from 
the United States for the colonics, he provides no security, enters 
no protest, suggests no caveat against its exercise ; hut, on the 
contrary, acquiesces in a general reservation, by Lord Aberdeen, 



* Since the above was jjronounced, the President has, by message, communi- 
cated to the Senate a letter from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Barbour, dated on the 
twenty-sixth of January, 1829, by which it appears that the hitter had jirotested 
against such discriminations as incompatible with the Commercial Convention, hut 
the former had insisted that there was no such incompalil)ility, and that the Brit- 
ish Government had the right to institute and ])ersevere in such measures. As 
to the advantage to be gained by a British ship, he says their laws did not then 
confer it, and adds, it " could not be effected without the concurrence of tlie United 
States. It rests entirely with the United States to allow or prohibit the car- 
riage of their cotton to a British Colony in the British ship, which, in the case 
supposed, is to carry it to England," and that, by Mr. Adams's proclamation 
of March, 1827, it was prohibited. 

All this must have been known to the American ^Minister and Secretary of State, 
when, by the arrangement of 1830, the prohibition was removed. The same message 
also transmitted extracts of two letters from Mr. McLane to Mr. Van Buren, under 
dates of fourteenth of March, and fourteenth of April, IS.'Jl ;by which it appears that 
the Chancellor of the I'Lxchequer had expressed an intention to jjrevent the circu- 
itous transmission, l)y requiring a certificate of origin, that it might not defeat his 
own ])urposes of revenue. But no ])romise, no stipulation, was ol)tained. On the 
contrary, our right under the Convention seems to be abandoned in the conclu- 
sion of the letter. The language is, " I have no great confidence in our preten- 
sions under tlie Convention, so long as the vessels of both countries shall be 
placed on the same footing in the direct trade with British European jjorts, and> 
therefore, 1 thought the surest means of attaining our object would be to address my- 
self immediately to the interests of Great Britain herself. It is apparent that the 
financial ol)jcct of this Government would be effectually frustrated by kee])ing up 
tiie discrimination between the direct and indirect importation, and there is little 
danger that the English finances will ever be in a situation to enable her to disre- 
gard so important a l)ranch of her revenue." 

The ])ower is, in effect, conceded, and our security against its exercise is merely 
and solely the interest of (ireat Britain. She cannot disj)ense, it is said, with the 
revenue, which would \ie lost under the low duty of one twenty-fifth of a ])enny 
by way of the colonics. What security is this ? How easy for the next I'arlia- 
ment to add five-eighths of a penny to both imposts, the direct and circuitous, 
preserving the difference, and securing the revenue ! Nay, if our right is alwm- 
doned, she may increase the discrimination, and when for revenue she adds to 
the duty from the colonies five-eighths of ajjcnny, she may increase it in the direct 
voyage to ten or a hundred times that amount. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 231 

of a right in his government thereafter, to change the condition of 
the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great 
Britain, so as to render it less favorable to this country. 

This part of the arrangement /merits deliberate attention. The 
law of 1830 peremptorily required of the Executive, that no agree- 
ment respecting the colonies, should be assented to except one 
"leaving the commercial intercourse of the United States with all 
other parts of the British dominions or provinces, on a footing not 
less favorable to the United States than it now is." " But," says 
the English minister, " we will make no stipulation to continue 
that intercourse, as favorable as it now is ; on the contrary, I 
expressly reserve to my Government the liberty of introducing 
changes at pleasure, however unpropitious to the United States." 
And to this Mr. McLane assented. 

Now, sir, suppose the British Government have already, or 
shall hereafter, avail themselves of this restriction, and place the 
other intercourse upon a footing less favorable to the United 
States. The question arises. Is the arrangement still in foa-ce ? 
Does it continue obligatory ? If so, then it subsists in violation 
of another positive enactment of the statute. If not — if the exer- 
cise of the right thus reserved by Great Britain dissolves the con- 
tract, then this boasted agreement is rendered a nullity, by plac- 
ing its existence at the mere will of our opponent. 

The statute of 1830 vested in the Executive large discretion- 
ary powers, with the design that they should be prudently hus- 
banded, and employed only for the advancement of the interests 
of our country ; instead of which he seems to have exhausted the 
whole at once ; and, not contented with that, transcended their 
limits, in accordance with the views of our rival. Lord Aberdeen 
is indulged in all his constructions, as he is pleased to denominate 
them, permitted to mould at pleasure not only the English stat- 
ute, but our own act of Congress. His every requisition is sub- 
mitted to without reserve. Not even a limitation, a caution, a 
counter suggestion of any sort, is interposed in our behalf. 

There is one defence set up by this administration of the terms 
of this contract which deserves a passing notice ; it is, that they 
are the same which were proposed by their immediate pi-edeces- 
sors. Yes, after having loaded them with abuse, prostrated them 
by calumnies, driven them by clamor from their stations, their 
opinions are now quoted ; their example is relied upon ; refuge 



232 COLONIAL TliADE. 

and defence are now sought under the broad and ample shield of 
their integrity and ahility. This, then, is the high-blown merit of 
this boasted achievement, that it is the adoption of a work pre- 
pared by others, who have been made the victims of political 
denunciation. But even this defence is without foundation. It is 
true that ]\Ir. McLane's original propositions Avere substantially 
the same as those authorized by ]Mr. Adams, but it is also true, 
that thej' were never accepted, and that the final agreement is 
essentially variant. To put this matter at rest, I will point out in 
what particulars. 

The offer of ]\lr. Adams, renewed by his successor, was that, 
upon certain conditions, we shquld have the full benefit of the act 
of Parliament of the fifth of July 18;25, which established, among 
other things, these two most important points : 

1st. A limitation and sjiecification of the duties -upon om* 
produce. 

2d. An equalization of them in the direct and circuitous voyage. 
Both of which essential jioints are unconditionally surrendered in 
the final adjustment. Lord Aberdeen having, in the most express 
and reiterated language, assented to by our Minister, reserved to 
his government the right to increase, diminish, alter and vary the 
schedule of duties ad libitum. 

That ^Ir. !McLane understood that his original propositions 
would secure the benefit of those restricted and equal imposts, is 
cei'tain. In his letter of the Kith of ^[arch, he says, that they 
embrace " the scale of duties prescribed by the act of 1825." 
And, in a subsequent communication, that the negotiation will 
result in one of three modes — the two last of which are the 
revocation of the British order, either " upon the terms of my 
proposition or," "with some increase of the duties imposed by 
the act of Parliament of 1825, to favor their northern })rovinces." 
And the recent correspondence laid before the Senate yesterday, 
contains plenary and conclusive evidence, that such were his orig- 
inal views. 

There is a third difference. Mr. Clay's offer embraced the 
benefits of the acts of Parliament according to his understanding 
of its provisions — as communicated to our minister — which was, 
that our vessels might imjjort, from the United States into the 
colonies, everv thing wliich the Britlsli could ; and if ^fr. (iallatin 
had assented to any compact, it must have embraced tlils construe- 



COLONIAL TRADE. 233 

tion. Indeed, it was never suggested, during the last adminis- 
tration, that any disparity, in this respect, coukl be tolerated for a 
moment Yet, now, the whole class of foreign productions are 
free to British, and prohibited to American, vessels. 

There is yet another distinction worthy of remark. In author- 
izing Mr. Gallatin to waive the restriction to the direct trade, Mr. 
Clay says that it is to be only as an experiment, and revocable at 
the pleasure of our government. But Mr. McLane made no such 
reservation ; and if his compact has any permanency or duration, 
we are precluded from renewing this restriction of our act of 1823, 
however injurious may be its omission. 

HUMILIATION. 

Havings examined this negotiation with much attention, I feel 
myself constrained, as an American citizen, alive to the honor of 
my country ; as a Senator, bound to vindicate its dignity, and assert 
its equality among the nations of the earth, to animadvert upon 
the tone and manner in which it has been conducted. 

Anterior to the year 1829, there has not been, in our national 
history, a more brilliant or unsullied page than that of our foreign 
diplomacy, and especially with England. In the presence of that 
nation and its monarch, all our former national representatives, 
from the first unbending son of Massachusetts, to the last high- 
minded Virginian, have stood firmly erect in conscious, republican 
self-respect. They demanded rights, but never solicited favors ; 
proffering equal friendship, but never bending the knee as suppli- 
ants. They met not arrogance by humility ; encroachment by 
submission ; and war upon our interests by solicitations and 
entreaties. Our fathers grappled with the British lion, but never 
fawned or crouched before him. How it has been recently, the 
negotiations of this arrangement will exhibit. 

They commenced in the autumn of 1829, by verbal conferences 
in which Mr. McLane made his proposition, accompanied by his 
solicitation that it might be taken into early and candid consider- 
ation, and " expressing the anxious desire of the President of the 
United States." Receiving no response, he, on the twelfth of 
December, addressed a long letter to the British Minister, reciting 
" the anxious desire of the President, repeating the proposition, 
renewing his solicitation," and making an "appeal to the candor 



234 COLONIAL TRADE. 

and liberality of His Majesty's Government." On the fourteenth, 
Lord Aberdeen replies by a barren note of a few lines, saying that 
he will lay the projiosition before the king. The month of Decem- 
ber passes by — no answer is received — January — no answer — 
February — no answer — ]\Iarch comes, but no ansAver with it ; and, 
in this state of cold and haughty neglect, what does our minister ? 
He writes a long, supplicatory epistle, of nearly twenty closely 
printed pages, in which he is seen " praying for a decision." 
" Again solicits — begs to suggest," recites his former oflfer in the 
following humble tone : 

" The proposition which the undersigned has already had the honor to 
submit, namely, that the United States .should do now, that which they 
might have done in 1825 — rescind the measures which may be alleged to 
have contributed to the present evil, and repeal the laws which have been 
matter of complaint ; and that England should assent now to a measure 
which, but a few years since, she herself proposed." 

Not content with this, he introduces to the English Government 
the distinction of parties in this country, admits " the failure of 
the past administration to comply " with the Act of 1825, and 
that, " whether it be a subject more of regret or censiu'O, it ought 
to be enough, that the claims, advanced in justification of it, have 
since been abandoned, by those who made them." Regret or cen- 
sure, from whom ? — the British ? Enough, for what ? — atonement 
to Great Britain ? He asks to be " excused " " in making this, 
his last application for an early decision." He admits " the injurious 
effects of the existing regulations upon the commercial and navi- 
gating enterprise of the people of the United States ; " that his 
hopes rest, " not so much upon the expectation of peculiar fovor 
to the United States, as of a liberal compliance of His ^Majesty's 
Government with its own regulations." l*cculiar fivor ! — " liberal 
compliance ! " — to relieve our commerce and navigation, in which 
her statesmen proclaim us their " most formidable rival." He 
" begs to observe," and " begs leave further to observe," and, in 
conclusion, exhibits himself in the attitude of "repeating for the 
last time " — (again !) — " his deep solicitude for the result ;" and 
" most earnestly recalling the attention of His Majesty's Ministers." 
That, should this point be unfavorably decided, the United States, 
while disappointed in its cherished hopes, would find nothing 
conciliating in the retrospect of a long course of fruitless negotiation. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 235 

and nothing clieering in the future prospect, darkened, as it would 
be by a possibility of a recurrence by the two nations to that system 
of countervailing measures, which has already proved so detrimen- 
tal to their harmony and welfare ! " 

Had England's monarch his foot upon our neck ? Were we 
begging for life ? At the darkest periods of our revolutionary 
contest — in the gloomiest moments of the last war — ^was there ever 
such supplications for relief — such sombre pictures of the future ? 
No. If there had been, we should not speedily have been cheered 
by the beams of glory and of peace. 

x'Vnd what was the response to all this " deep solicitude," this 
prostration, this " renewed solicitation," begging, and entreating 
of His Britannic Majesty ? Not one word ! Utter silence, super- 
cilious coldness, and haughty neglect. How does our Minister 
meet such contumelious treatment of this, his last earnest and 
pathetic appeal ? He goes to the " Foreign Office," to renew again 
his solicitations. On the sixth of April following, he says, " I 
have had a conference with Lord Aberdeen to-day, which I sought 
for the purpose of urging the definitive answer to my proposition." 
He then speaks of "previous conferences," and expectations ; and 
adds : 

" I have not failed to represent to him the very serious injury and 
embarrassment, which must result from delaying the answer until the 
Congress shall rise, and of what, I fear, may be the insuperable difficulties 
of any prospective legislation, with a view to a future arrangement. None 
of these efforts have yet proved sufficient to bring the answer." 

The residue of April passes by — no answer ; May — no answer ; 
June — no answer ; July comes — but with no reply. And then 
]Mr. McLane, having received the Act of May preceding, seeks a 
verbal conference, in which its provisions are discussed, and Lord 
Aberdeen's objections obviated by explanations and construction. 
He requires, however, a communication in writing, and our minis- 
ter makes it under date of the twelfth of July ; in which he char- 
acterizes the Act as conceding all the power, etc., as before stated, 
and says, that it " has been framed without any pledge, prospec- 
tive or otherwise, from Great Britain." Thus confessing, that he 
had obtained not one word of promise by all his solicitations. He 
"repeats his deep interest," and "renewed hope," speaks of the 
" grace" of a prompt and frank reply, and of " the duty of His 



236 COLONIAL TRADE. 

Majesty's Government to quiet the public expectations, and to 
mitigate, as far as may be in its power, the injurious effects, upon 
the ITiiited States, of an unfavorable reply." 

On the seventeenth of August, Lord Aberdeen deigns to 
respond. I'assing over the previous communications of !Mr. 
McLanc, he comes to that of July, as containing " more satisfac- 
tory propositions ; " and most provokingly repeats certain parts of 
the language of our minister, thus : 

" Of the character and effect of the recent measure of the American 
Congress, Mr. MoLane observes, that ' it concedes, in its terms, all the 
power in the regulation of the colonial trade, and authorizes the President 
to confer on British subjects all those privdeges, as well in the circuitous 
as the direct voyage, which Great Britain has at any time demanded or 
desired." 

" In this declaration, the undersigned is happy to observe the same 
spirit and disposition Avhich dictated Mr. McLane's former communica- 
tions, wherein he announced the readiness and desire of the American 
Government ' to comply with the conditions of the act of Parliament of 
1826,' and also, that the claims advanced in justification of the omission 
of the United States to embrace the offers of this country, have been 
abandonel by those who urged them, and have received no sai.ctlon from 
the people of the United States." 

Can any American read such language from a foreigner, but 
•with indignant feelings ? Would it be tolerated were it not the 
mere echo of the words of our own agent ? Was the language of 
that British envoy, Copenhagen- Jackson, for which our Govern- 
ment repelled all further intercourse with him, so insulting as 
this? 

Lord Aberdeen proceeds, there are passages in the bill " in 
which it seems at least doubtful, whether the practical construc- 
tion " would be such as Mr. McLane is ready to affix. He then 
distinctly recapitulates all the explanations, or, as I deem some of 
them, modifications of the act, which had been previously agreed 
upon, and in conclusion declares — what ? That the ports are 
open, the order in council rescinded, or, that it will be done forth- 
with ? — Oh no. AVe must open our ports first, lie will not 
trust our envoy — the President must give a previous practical 
construction, by issuing his Proclamation. And he did so. Lord 
Aberdeen seems to have practised the jealousy and caution of the 



COLONIAL TRADE. 237 

Yorkshire servant, in tlie farce, who, being flattered, solicited and 
urged, by a hungry man for a meal, replies, " Either I mun trust 
you for t' money, or you mun trust me for t' breakfast. Now, as 
you seem to be vastly taken wi' me, an' I a'nt at all taken wi' 
you, you'd better gi' me t' money, you see, an' trust me for t' 
breakfast." 

The concluding congratulatory epistle of Mr. Yan Buren to 
Mr. ]McLane, communicating the President's Proclamation, closes 
the scene as an appropriate epilogue, a suitable finale. 

After all this neglect, hauteur, superciliousness and grasping, 
over-reaching selfishness on their part, in return for solicitation, 
humiliation and prodigal concession on ours ; after placing an act 
of the American Congress at the foot of a British Minister, to be 
trampled upon and violated ; our own envoy is instructed to 
express to that Government the " great satisfaction," " the 
President has derived from the candor and liberality which have 
characterized the condvict of His Majesty's Ministers throughout 
the negotiation, and particularly in not suffering the inadvertencies 
of our legislation, attributable to the haste and confusion of the 
closing scenes of the session, to defeat and delay the adjustment," 
etc., etc. 

And subsequently, after the " pleasing duty " of communicating 
to Mr. McLane, the President's "entire satisfaction," Mr. Yan 
Buren concludes by saying, " I beg leave to add the expression of 
my own unqualified approbation of all your acts since the com- 
mencement of your mission." 

Mr. President, to what primary cause can be ascribed these 
disastrous results ? To what fountain shall we trace these waters 
of bitterness ? Whence this infatuation, this suicidal delusion, 
which seems to have controlled the councils of the nation ? It is 
the demon of party which now for the first time has crossed the 
Atlantic -to present our domestic division to a foreign court. 

A clamor in relation to the colonial trade has been raised against 
the late administration as one of the means of driving them from 
power ; and their successors, to give some color of a redemption 
of previous promises for political ends, deemed it necessary that, 
at any rate, something should be done, to be trumpeted by parti- 
sans. Even the President has said, in answer to a resolution 
which I had some time since the honor to introduce upon this 
subject, that one of the reasons which stimulated his negotiation 



238 COLONIAL TR.\DE. 

was the "influence it "was believed to have had in the elections 
which terminated in the change of administration." 

It is fabled that the wild horse in his native freedom sought the 
aid of man aginst his opjionent, the stag ; he submitted to the bit 
and the saddle ; the stag was hunted doAvn ; but the man was 
forever seated upon his back. 

This administration has already felt the spur and the reins of 
the rider ; and endeavored, but in vain, to dismount him. This, 
their condition, is fully exhibited in their correspondence, just now 
received, in answer to a resolution of the Senate. It has seen 
the light, for the first time, since I began to address you. We 
there learn that when the grateful and congratulatory epistle of 
our Secretary of State had but just reached the British shores ; 
while yet the trumpet of triumph and the pagans cf praise were 
resounding through the land ; our envoy was raising his voice in 
alarm and protestation against the injurious exercise of the very 
power which he had just conceded. 

The British order in council was issued on the sixth of Novem- 
ber, 1830, and, before the expiration of the same mouth, our 
minister is seen endeavoring, by a long and elaborate communi- 
cation, to arrest the progress of a bill in Parliament for regulating 
colonial duties. He especially and earnestly protested against that 
principle of the bill which discriminated between imposts in the 
direct and circuitous routes in order to favor British navigation. 
His complaints were unheeded. The measure was not then con- 
summated, by reason of a change of ministry ; but he was informed 
that one of similar character would be perfected at the next 
Parliament. It was so. It passed on the !>i2d of April, 1831. 
It involves the same objectionable principle, against which our 
negotiator protested in the November preceding, and in which he 
was subse([uently instructed to persevere, by the Secretary of State. 
Indeed, it carried that piinciple still further in practical extent, by 
making the discriminations in favor of the indirect voyage greater 
than the former bill. Against this, too, ]\Ir. McLane protested in 
vain, as contrary to his expectation under the arrangement. He 
declared that " no equality in any part of the trade could be pre- 
dicted of its provisions." He even began at last to use the 
language of demand — he says : ** I distinctly required that the bill 
should be conformed to the terms and spirit of the agreement con- 
cluded with Lord Aberdeen." But the British answered, " that 



COLONIAL TRADE. 239 

there was a reservation in respect to the schedule of duties annexed 
to the act of 1825." This was conclusive. It admitted of no 
replication. The bill was not changed. It became a law. It 
has been submitted to in silence by our Executive, and the trade 
is now subjected to all its injurious enactments. Not only sub- 
mitted to ; but, in December last, upon the assembling of this 
Congress, " the President of the United States transmitted his 
annual message, purporting to give information of the condition of 
our country and its important interests. He had then before him 
all these communications of his favorite Secretary, and approved 
negotiator — the protestation against this objectional principle — the 
distinct requisition of a modification of the bill — the unequivocal 
confession that it was destructive of all equality in trade ; and^the 
obnoxious and denounced bill itself. Did he send them to us ? 
Did he let us know of their existence ? No, sir ; but, on the con- 
trary, referred to " arrangements with Great Britain, which had 
been productive of mutual good feeling and amicable relations 
between the two countries." He told us, one of these arrange- 
ments is that relating to the colonial trade which was communi- 
cated to Congress at the last session ; and although the short period 
during which it has been in force, will not enable me to form an 
accurate judgment of its operation ; there is every reason to believe 
that it will prove highly beneficial." 

I make no commentary upon the attitude in which the chief 
magistrate of this republican country has thus been placed by those 
who influence his counsels. I leave it, as I do the whole subject, 
to the calm consideration and deliberate judgment of the Senate. 
I have discharged my duty to my constituents and the country. 
I have done no more — I meant to do no less. I have studiously 
endeavored to be correct. If in any respect I have fallen into 
error I have the satisfaction to know that the means of correction 
are accessible to every member, and that they will be zealously 
and ably improved. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 



16 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 



Prior to the Treaty of Ghent, a controversy had arisen, as to the 
Boundary Line between the United States and the British Provinces of 
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, By that Treaty, it was provided that 
this question should be submitted to arbitration. A Convention was sub- 
sequently entered into, appointing the King of the Netherlands as the 
Arbiter, and the matter was duly submitted to him. He made a Report, 
but it was not an award, declaring where the true line described in the 
Treaty of 1783 was, but a recommendation to the parties of a new line, as 
designated in the Report. The subject was submitted by the President to 
the Senate, for its advice. The people of Maine, whose rights and terri- 
torial limits were at stake, were very deeply excited. When the subject 
came up for consideration, Mr. Sprague addressed the Senate as follows. 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 



In Senate, July 10, 1832. 

The following Resolution was reported by the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs : 

Resolved, That the Senate advise the President to express to His Majesty, the 
King of the Netherlands, the assent of the United States to the determination 
made by liim, and consent to the execution of the same. 

The foregoing Resolution bding under consideration, Mr. Sprague said : 

Mr. President : Notwithstanding the rights and the interests 
of Maine are so deeply involved, and my own solicitude is so ex- 
cited upon this subject, I shall, nevertheless, yield to the admoni- 
tions to brevity which are presented by the period of the session, 
and the hour of the day. Suppressing a strong desire thoroughly 
to improve the whole wide field of discussion, I shall compress 
my remarks, even upon the topics introduced by the report of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Speech of its Chairman. 
The immediate question is. Shall a majority of two-thirds be 
required to pass the advisory resolution reported by the commit- 
tee ? The President has asked our advice upon the question of 
submission to the opinion of the arbiter. Why did he come to 
this body ? Only because we, by the constitution, are his advis- 
ers in relation to the formation of compacts Avith foreign nations ; 
and constitute a part of the treaty-making power, acting by a 
majority of two-thirds. In any other character or capacity, he 
might as well demand the opinion of the House of Eepresenta- 



246 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

tives, or any other aggregation of individuals. If, then, ^-e arc to 
respond as a part of the treaty -making power, must we not do it 
by the requisite constitutional majority ? -The honorable and able 
member from Virginia (Mr. Tazc-\vell) tells us that, when the con- 
joint action of the other House was requisite, as in legislation, a 
mere majority of the Senate only was necessary ; but, when acting 
without the check of the other branch, the majority of two-thirds 
was substituted as a restraint upon ourselves. He had reference, 
I presume, not to Executive nominations to office, but to all opin- 
ions in relation to our foreign intercourse. Upon his own princi- 
ples, then, should not two-thirds be now required in reference to 
a public treaty, when there is to be no concurrence of the other 
House, — no check or restraint by them upon the action of the 
Senate ? 

The gentleman also declares his opinion that the spirit and 
design of the constitution demand that the Senate should be con- 
sulted, both before and after the formation of a treaty. If so, do 
they not act, in both cases, under the same requisition, and by the 
same proportional numbers ? Would it not be preposterous that 
the Senate, by a majority, should advise the making of a compact, 
and, when the same is subsequently submitted for their approval, 
it should be rejected for the want of two-thirds, the same mem- 
bers voting in the same manner, without the change of a yea or a 
nay ? What a disjointed spectacle of incongruity would that pre- 
sent to foreign nations ! 

The Senator adverted to the early practice of the Executive in 
the halcyon days of the first President, but it did not show a sin- 
gle precedent of a resolution of advice by a simple majority ; while 
my colleague cited yesterday two instances of such action by the 
requisite two-thirds, and I now add another, on the twentieth of 
January, 1792, in relation to an increase of annuity to the Seneca 
tribe of Indians. Principle and precedent, therefore, both demand 
that the proposed amendment should be adopted. 

The chairman of the committee (]Mr. Tazewell) says, that his 
first opinion was, that the Senate had no power to act upon the 
subject, but that the reference of the resolutions which I had the 
honor to introduce conferred authority to give an advisory opin- 
ion. Although such a consequence could not have been antici- 
pated by any one, and few possess ingenuity enough to deduce it, 
yet, had it been foreseen, so far from constituting an objection, it 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 047 

would, in the state of the question and opinions of the Senate as 
then existing, have presented an additional inducement to their 
introduction, as the most probable means of preventing a catastro- 
phe which I deprecate — the acceptance of, and submission to, this 
miscalled award. 

How the offering a resolution, not adopted, but referred to a 
committee for inquiry, should give to the Senate jurisdiction on a 
subject not otherwise within the scope of its legitimate powers, is 
not easily comprehended. Can the Senate, by such a process, by 
simply raising a committee of inquiry, extend its powers, and 
bring every thing within the range of its constitutional action ? 

But I hasten directly to the paramount question. Is this award 
or opinion binding vipon the United States ? And is their faith 
plighted to adopt the boundary therein designated ? And here I 
cannot withhold my cordial thanks to the gentleman from Ken- 
tucky (Mr Clay) for the able and convincing argument which he 
yesterday addressed to the Senate, against the acceptance of this 
award, and in defence of the rights, the soil, and the citizens of 
Maine. The objection arising from the essential changes in the 
sovereign character of the arbiter — the disruption and loss of more 
than half of his empire, being thrown, by political convulsions, a 
dependent upon Great Britain, not only for the demarcation of the 
boundaries of his own kingdom, but even for the preservation of 
the remnant of his power, has been, together with other topics, so 
ably discussed by him, that I may well, in the discharge of my 
duty, abstain from attempting to strengthen the impression which 
he has produced. But there is one point, and that the principal, 
leading, decisive objection, to which I feel myself bound to solicit 
your further indulgent attention. It is, that there has been no 
decision of the question referred ; the award, if such it is to be 
called, the advice, is not within the submission. 

That this, if found to be true, would exonerate the United 
States from all obligation of submission, must be universally con- 
ceded. No independent nation can be required to adopt the rec- 
ommendation of any sovereign, except so far as bound by com- 
pact ; and, if it be agreed to submit to arbitrament, a distinct, spe- 
cific question, and the arbiter, from inability or disinclination, 
makes no decision, but gratuitously assumes the office of an adviser, 
with which he was never invested, and volunteers a recommenda- 
tion upon a subject in relation to which his opinion was never 



248 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

asked, surely the parties, if they do not repel the ^sumption as 
offensive, may well decline receiving it as obligatory. 

Is the award Avithin the terms or meaning of the submission ? 
No one has yet insisted that it is. But, on the contrary, the 
Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in effect, concedes 
that it is not. Declining to discuss the question distinctly, the 
committee say that they are aware that there are many reasons 
which, to the minds of our own citizens at least, may appear strong 
to induce the opinion that it is no decision, and may therefore be 
legitimately disregarded. And again, toward the conclusion, they 
remark : " Although it may, perhaps, be truly said that the United 
States are not bound by this award, as such, yet it will be consid- 
ered by all the civilized world," etc. 

The chairman of the committee, in his speech yesterday, did 
not undertake to say directly, that there had been any decision of 
the matter referred ; but, following the track of the report, rather 
conceded that there had not — insisting, however, that Ave ought 
to acquiesce from motives of public policy, and to conciliate the 
favorable opinion of other nations. 

Sir, it is susceptible of demonstration that there has been no 
decision of the question referred. The arbitrament was more im- 
mediately governed by the convention of 1827, made between the 
United States and Great Britain, for the sole purpose of executing 
the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, which article was designed 
merely to carry into effect the treaty of peace of 1783, by ascer- 
taining where, upon the surface of the earth, was that point of the 
highlands, due north from the source of the St. Croix river, desig- 
nated in that original treaty as the northwest angle of Nova Sco- 
tia ; and by surveying and marking two lines from that point to 
fixed monuments. To begin at the fountain, then, we must 
recur to the description of boundary in the original treaty which 
acknowledges the independence of the United States. Its lan- 
guage, so far as pertinent to the present investigation, is : 

" The following are, and sliall be, their (the United States) boundaries, 
to wit : From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which 
is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix river to 
the highlands along the said highlands, which divide those rivers that empty 
themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic 
Ocean, to the northwcstcrnmost head of Connecticut river ; .... east, by 
a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth, in 



NORTHEASTEEN BOUNDARY. 249 

the Bay of Fundy, to its source ; and from its source directly north to 
the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlan- 
tic Ocean from those that fall into the river St. Lawrence." 

The source of the St. Croix river was ascertained in the year 
1798, and has ever since been designated by a monument then 
established and marked by the mutual agreement of both nations. 

From that spot the boundary was to be " due north ; " and the 
only question which could arise was. Where is the termination of 
that north line ? — which point being ascertained, all that would 
remain was the mere mechanical and mathematical process of sur- 
veying and marking lines between fixed monuments. The loca- 
tion of that point is described and defined with the utmost clear- 
ness and precision, in the treaty of 1783. It is at " the high- 
lands ; " the due north line is to be drawn "to the highlands," 
and there stop. And of that terminus is the north-west angle of 
Nova Scotia ; and thence another line was to be drawn along those 
highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river. 
Now what question does the treaty of Ghent mention, or suppose 
to exist ? What was to be ascertained ? 

The Fifth Article states it with great perspicuity : 

" Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the 
source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of peace 
between the two Powers as the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, nor, etc. 
.... has yet been ascertained ; and whereas that part of the boundary 
line .... from the source of the river St. Croix directly north, to the 
abovementioned north-west angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said 
highlands which divide, etc., has not yet been surveyed — ." 

Therefore provision is made for ascertaining that single point, 
and surveying those lines by commissioners. They were appointed 
accordingly ; but, differing in opinion, made their several reports to 
their respective governments. Pursuant to the Fifth Article in the 
Treaty of Ghent, a reference to an arbiter then became necessary, and 
the convention of 1827 succeeded in regulating and defining the 
manner of executing this requisition. The First Article provided 
that the points of difference which had arisen should be submitted 
to an arbiter, to decide on such points of difference, in accordance 
to the Treaty of Ghent, and that the parties should make their 
several and separate statements of the case to be laid before the 
arbiter. This was done, and there was no discrepancy between 



250 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

them as to the matters iii dispute which had arisen, and upon 
■which a decision was required. The American statement presents 
the point in difference, so flir as relates to the present controversy, 

thus : 

" 1st. The north-west angle of Nova Scotia, and the boundary Hne con- 
temphited by the treaty of 1783, extending from that angle, along certain 
highlands, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river." 

And, in the British Statement, it is expressed in the following 
language : 

" 1st, The parties differ respecting the point designated in the treaties as 
the north-west angle of Nova Scotia ; and respecting the highlands along 
which the line of boundary is to be carried, which is destined to divide 
the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those 
which fall into the Atlantic Ocean." 

Here, then, Ave have the question to be decided, clearly, dis- 
tinctly, and unequivocally defined and described by both parties, 
in the official statements upon Avhich, by the express provisions 
of the treaty, the award was to be rendered. 

AVhere is the north-west angle of Nova Scotia ? Has that ques- 
tion been answered by the aw^ard ? So far from it, that the arbiter 
not only does not profess to determine, but unequivocally declines 
it. After some reasoning upon the subject, he says : 

" Consequently, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, here alluded to, 
having been unknown in 1783, is to be considered as a petition of princi- 
ple, {petition de principe,) affording no basis for a decision," etc. 

The inquiry respecting that angle has with him no basis of a 
decision, although that was the precise question propounded. And 
subsequently he says that he considers the question " divested of 
the inconclusive arguments chawn from the nature, more or less 
hilly, of the ground, from the ancient delimitation of the prov- 
inces, from the nortli-west angle of Nova Scotia, and — ," etc. 

In conclusion, he declares : 

" The arguments adduced on either side, and the documents exhibited 
in respect of them, cannot be considered as sufficiently preponderating to 
determine a preference in favor of one of the two lines respectively claimed 
liy the high interested parties as the boundaries of their possessions, from 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 251 

the source of the river St. Crois to the northwesternmost head of Connec- 
ticut river: and that the nature of the difference, and the vague and not 
sufficiently determinate stipulations of the treaty of 1783 do not permit 
to adjudge either of those lines to one of the said parties, without wound- 
ing the principles of law and equity with regard to the other." 

And he therefore tenders the following advisory opinion : 

" That it shall be suitable (11 conveniendra) to adopt, as the bound- 
ary of the two States, a line drawn due north from the source of the river 
St, Croix to the point where it intersects the middle of the tholweg ^ of 
the river St. John; thence, the middle of the tholweg of that river, ascend- 
ing it to the point where the river St. Francis empties itself into the river 
St. John ; thence the middle of the tholweg of the river St. Francis, 
ascending it, to the source of its southwesternmost branch, which source 
we indicate on the map A by the letter X, authenticated by the signature 
of our Minister of Foreign Affairs ; thence, a line drawn due west, to the 
point where it unites with the line claimed by the United States of Amer- 
ica, and delineated on the map A ; thence, said line, to the point at which, 
according to said map, it coincides with that claimed by Great Britain ; 
and thence/' etc. 

I insist, therefore, that the arbiter did not intend or profess to 
decide the questions submitted ; but, putting them entirely aside, 
proceeds to recommend the substitution of a new description of 
boundary. The language is : 

" It will be suitable (11 conveniendra) [convenient] to adopt or accept, 
as the boundary," etc. 

But even if he had designed this to be a determination wdthin 
the submission, it is nevertheless palpable that it is not. The 
interrogatory was, where, according to the treaty of 1783, is the 
north-western angle of Nova Scotia, and the line thence along the 
highlands ? That angle of Nova Scotia is described and defined 
by the treaty of 1783, and again by the treaty of Ghent, to be on 
the highlands, and at the termination of a due north line from the 
source of the St. Croix. Where does the arbiter make that line 
terminate ? In the centre of the St. John's river ! And there 
must be his highlands, if he designed to locate that angle. But 
the absurdity does not cease here. After striking the angle of 

* Tholweg, a German compound word : thol, valley ; weg, way. It means 
here the deepest channel of the river. — [Translator. 



252 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

Nova Scotia, the only line to be drawn by the treaty is " along 
the highlands ; " but the course of the arbiter is along the deepest 
channel of the river St. John, by all its meanderings, till he reaches 
a branch called the St. Francis, which he ascends by its deepest 
channel to its soutlnvesternmost ramification, and thence to its 
source. And upon the hypothesis that he designed to decide this 
to be the treaty boundary, he must have declared that the high- 
lands are in the deepest of the waters of the rivers St. John and 
St. Francis ! But there is yet a further difficulty. By the treaty 
there can be but two lines of boundary ; one due north, and the 
other along the highlands ; the angle of Nova Scotia being at their 
point of intersection. The (due) north course of the king of the 
Netherlands ends at the centre of the St. John ; his next line is 
by the thread of that river and its branches, sometimes running 
northwestwardly, sometimes southwcstwardly, and at others in a 
different direction to its source ; but where then ? The treaty 
allows only a north course ; but he arbitrarily directs it to be due 
west to the highlands, and thence along that ridge. 

Now, sir, to accuse the king of the Netherlands of intending to 
impose this upon the United States as the true original boundary, 
would be doing him gross injustice ; it involves the supposition 
that he could be guilty of a falsehood so glaring as to be an insult 
to the intelligence of this nation ; it would doom him to the in- 
evitable condemnation of fatuity or corruption. Sir, there Is no 
man whose intellect rises above the grade of idiocy, who can, after 
a due comparison, pronounce that the delineation b)' the arbiter is 
the same with that of the treaty of peace of 1783. No man ever 
has said so, and I venture to assert that no one ever will. Sir, 
if the arbiter had professed so to decide, fraud and falsehood 
would have been stamped upon the front of his award. I cheer- 
fully and entirely exonerate him from all such charge. He is 
obnoxious to no such imputation. So far from it that he declares 
that he does not and cannot ascertain the treaty boundary, but 
recommends a substitute. The Committee on Foreign Relations 
do not contend tliat he has decided that question ; and, what is 
more, the British (lovernment themselves concede that he has not. 
This is found in the official communication of the diplomatic agent, 
^Ir. Bankhead, made to our Secretary of State on the twentieth of 
December last, urging our submission to the aMard, and In which 
he uses the following language : 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 253 

" Commissioaers, since the treaty of 1783, have found it impossible to 
reconcile the description of boundary contained in that treaty with the 
real features of the country, ascertained by actual survey ; and the hope- 
lessness of establishing absolutely, in favor of either party, the point which 
has thus, since the year 1783, been the subject of controversy between 
them, has now received a new confirmation by the solemn decision of an 
arbitrator chosen by both parties, who has pronounced it to be incapable 
of being established in accordance with the terms of the original treaty, 
that treaty having been drawn up in ignorance of the real features of the 
country which it professed to describe. Seeing, then, that there cannot be 
a settlement of the claims of either party in strict accordance with the 
treaty of 1783, what course would remain, even if the choice were now to 
be made, but that which was agreed upon by the negotiators of the treaty 
of Ghent, viz., the adjustment of the differences between the two Govern- 
ments by means of an arbitrator ? And how unreasonable would it be to 
object to such an adjustment, because it aimed at settling by compromise 
differences pronounced to be otherwise irreconcilable ! " 

The errors involved in this extract, I may, perhaps, notice here- 
after. But, at present, I am concerned only to occupy the two 
impregnable and conceded positions : 1st. That the arbiter has not 
decided the question submitted. 2d. That the line by him 
described is variant from the true boundary of the treaty. These 
being known and fundamental truths in this discussion, upon "what 
ground is it urged that we should acquiesce in the award ? From 
reasons of public policy, and a regard to the opinions of the for- 
eign world, say the committee. 

But, before you act from considerations of expediency, pause 
awhile upoia your constitutional powers and obligations. This is 
no award. It is not within the submission. It is not in pursu- 
ance of the treaty. It is not in execution of its provisions. It is 
the recommendation of a new delineation, against which the State 
of Maine has solemnly protested. 

Sir, it is not wdthin the constitutional competency of this Gov- 
ernment to assign new boundaries, kno^vn to be such, to any one 
of the States, whether to increase or diminish the quantum of its 
territory. The extent of our authority is to ascertain and define 
their true, original, exterior limits ; and the United States could 
not, and have not attempted to confer upon an arbiter any power 
to prescribe or advise the institution of new boundaries. In this, 
all are agreed ; no one controverts that such is the constitutional 
limitation of our authority. It is said, indeed, that, in the per- 



254 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

formance of this duty, error may be committecl, and a portion of a 
State be unknowingly cut off. But the possibility of mistake, in 
the honest endeavor to determine the truth, does not authorize the 
wanton, wilful departure from it by the adoption of a boundary 
known and acknowledged to be variant from the original. We 
say, then, that the impassable prohibitions of the Constitution pre- 
sent an insuperable barrier to the adoption of the new lines of 
demarcation recommended by the arbiter, without the previous 
consent of the State of Maine. This she has never yielded ; but, 
on the contrary, entered her solemn protestation. Here, then, 
we might I'est upon the ground of irresistible, constitutional right. 
But, nevertheless, considerations of expediency are invoked. 
Although we may convince ourselves, say the committee, yet will 
our arguments satisfy others ? Will not the world adjudge us 
guilty of a violation of our national faith ? 

Let us look this argument in the face. We are under no obli- 
gations to submit to this aAvard, but we are constrained to decline 
it by the solemn provisions of the fundamental compact of Gov- 
ernment. Our faith is plighted to the (State to preserve in%iolate 
the integrity of its soil, and to vindicate the sacredness of the per- 
sons of its inhabitants. And this argument of policy M'ould per- 
suade us to sacrifice our duty to a State from an apprehension that 
other nations may, through ignorance, believe us to be faithless ; 
to incur the actual guilt of perfidy for fear of the mere appear- 
ance of it in foreign eyes. But even that apprehension is Avithout 
foundation. This subject will be understood by the European 
world ; and, if we would not sink in their estimation, we must 
exhibit that intelligence which is not to be betrayed by shallow 
artifice, and that decision and energy which repel encroachment. 
Great ]hitain herself will more highly respect a refusal than our 
submission. But the opinions of foreign nations are of compara- 
tively little moment. The dangers to our political fabric are from 
within, from the disaffection of the members of this Union. From 
the pressure of external force, we have nothing to apprehend. 
It will but compress and consolidate our ITnion. Internal disaf- 
fection and mutual repulsion are the fountains of our fears. Bet- 
ter incur the odium of the Avorld, than bring home to the coun- 
cils of a single member of this Union a well founded conviction 
of violated duty and broken faith. 

Again, Ave are asked, if avc reject this aAvard, hoAV is this contro- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 255 

versy to be adjusted ? And, to magnify this difficulty, we are 
told that this dispute as to the New England boundary reaches far 
back into the early history of this country, even to the period when 
France and England were contending for the extension of their 
respective adjacent provinces. That this dispute is of ancient date, 
I strenuously controvert. I will show it to be of very recent ori- 
gin. That a controversy existed between Great Britain and France, 
when the latter was the sovereign of Canada, I readily admit • 
But all the right and title of the latter were ceded to Great Brit- 
ain by the treaty of Paris of 1763, who, having thus become the 
undisputed sovereign of all the adjacent provinces, by her own 
unquestionable powers, fixed and defined their boundaries by the 
royal proclamation of October, 1763, which established the Gov- 
ernment of Quebec, now Lower Canada. This solemn act of the 
common sovereign terminated forever all preexisting disputes, by 
authoritatively prescribing and defining the divisional lines of 
Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, and Canada. The demarcation thus 
established was adopted and confirmed by the act of Parliament of 
1779, and inserted in our treaty of independence of 1783. After 
this, a new question arose, — which, of several rivers, was the true 
St. Croix. This was definitively settled, and the monument at its 
source established in 1798, by commissioners of the two countries, 
appointed pursuant to the convention of 1794, which put to rest 
all then existing doubts as to the true location of our Northeastern 
Boundary. No question, or ground of controversy, was sujjposed 
to remain. It would have been strange, indeed, that a treaty- 
making provision for a commission to terminate doubts as to that 
boundary should not have embraced all existing controversies. It 
did so ; and the commissioners determined finally and conclusively 
all matters submitted. This is historically and certainly known. 
Even the Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations acknowl- 
edges and asserts it, declaring that " this decision settled defin- 
itively the uncertain terminus a quo the Northern Boundary of the 
United States was to run -, and, as no difference then existed 
between the two Powers as to the course or direction of this line 
of boundary, the terminus ad quern was also supposed to be fixed." 
With what propriety or justice are those old, obsolete, long- 
settled questions now invoked for the purpose of aggravating the 
difficulty of the present controversy, with which they have no con- 
nexion, which had no existence until long after they had passed 



256 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

away, -which indeed has been brought into being since the treaty 
of Ghent of 1814? 

What is the precise point now in contestation ? It is, " Where 
are the highhmds which divide those rivers that empty themselves 
into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic 
Ocean ? " The treaty of independence established the boundaiy 
to be a line due north from the source of the St. Croix to those 
highlands, and thence, along that elevation, to the head of 
Connecticut river. The source of St. Croix having been defin- 
itively settled, it is now contested where are these highlands of 
which the north line is to terminate, and along which the next 
is to be draM'n. 

This, I repeat, wa^ never made a question, until subsequent to 
the treaty of Ghent. Up to that time, even after the year 1T63, 
the course and location of that elevation was as well known, as 
incontestably established, as universally acknowledged, as any 
great geographical feature of the country — I might say, as to the 
St. Lawrence river itself; and no other range or tract had ever 
been so claimed or denominated. 

I am aware, sir, that this is strong and confident language ; and 
presents the recent British pretension as not only utterly baseless, 
but of consummate effrontery. Permit me very concisely to 
advert to some irrefragable proofs. That range of highlands is 
first introduced, as a boundary, in the proclamation of 1763, estab- 
lishing the province of Quebec, (Canada,) the southern limit being 
described as follows : 

" Crossing the river St. Lawrence and the lake Champlain in forty-five 
degrees of north hxtitudo, passes along the highlands which divide the rivers 
that empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those which 
fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs.'' 

South of the river St. Lawrence, and nearly parallel thereto, 
and at an average distance of between twenty and thirty miles, is 
a range of broken highlands, extending from the soiuxe of the 
Connecticut river, northeastwardly, toward Cape llosieres, from 
which arc turned, on the one hand, those rivers entering into 
the St. Lawrence, and, on the other, those which fall into the 
Atlantic Ocean, vi/., the Androscoggin, the Kennebeck, the Penob- 
scot, the St. John, and the llistigouche. And, accompanying this 
proclamation, in the British Annual llegister of the same yeai", is 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 257 

an original map, carefully prepared for the express purpose of 
accurately delineating the boundaries, and in which the highlands 
are prominently laid down as then and since known and under- 
stood, and in precise accordance with the claim of the United 
States. 

Nor is this all. Other British maps, and those frequent and 
numerous, from authentic and official sources, were compiled and 
published ; in all of which, without one exception, the highlands, 
where mentioned, are delineated as I have before described, in 
exact coincidence with our claim ; while, on the other hand, not 
one presented the now pretended rival range newly created south 
of the St. John's. 

Sir, permit me to enumerate the titles of some of them now in 
my hand, and to which I invite the particular examination of 
every Senator, viz. : 

1763. — A New Map of the British Dominions in North America, with 
the Limits of the Governments annexed thereto by the late Treaty of Peace, 
and settled by Proclamation, October 7th, 1763, Engraved by T. Kitchin, 
Geographer, for the Annual Register of 1763. 

1769. — A New and Accurate Map of the British Dominions in America, 
according to the Treaty of 1763, divided into the Several Provinces and 
Jurisdictions. Projected upon the best Authorities and Astronomical Qbser- 
vations, by Thomas Kitchin, Geographer. Engraved for Knox's History 
of the War in America. 

1765. — A Map of North America, by J. Palairet, with Considerable 
Alterations and Improvements from D'Anville, Mitchell, and Bellin, by 
L. Delarochette. 

1766. — A Map of the British Dominions in North America, as settled 
by the late Treaty of Peace. 1763. J. llidge. 

1770. — British Empire in North America, with the West India Isles. 
Annexed to Wynne's History. 

1771. — A New and Accurate Map of North America, from the famous 
Mr. D'Anville, etc. Also the New Divisions according to the late Treaty 
of Peace. By Peter Bell, Geographer. 

1772. — A Map of the British Dominions in North America, according 
to the Treaty of 1768. By Peter Bell, Geographer. 

1775. — North America and the West Indies, with the Opposite Coasts 
of Europe and Africa. Published according to Act of Parliament. 

1776. — A New Map of the Province of Quebec, according to the Royal 
Proclamation of the Seventh of October, 1763, from the French Surveys, 
connected with those made after the War by Captain Carver, and other 
Ofl&cers in His Majesty's service. Sayer and Bennett. 

17 



258 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

1776 — A General Map of the Northern British Colonies in America, 
•which eoniprehencls the Province of Quebec, the Government of New- 
foundhvnd, Nova Scotia, New p]ngland and New York, from the Maps 
published by the Admiralty and Board of Trade, etc. 

1777. — A New and Correct Map of North America, "with the West 
India Islands, divided according to the last Treaty of Peace, concluded 
at Paris Tenth Fe!)ruary, 1703, wherein are particularly distinguished the 
Several Provinces and Colonies which compose the British P^mpire, laid 
down according to the Latest Surveys, and corrected from the Original 
Materials of Governor Pownall, Member of Parliament. 

1777. — The British Colonies in North America. By William Faden. 

1778. — A New ^lap of North America, from the Latest Discoveries. 
Enorraved for Carver's Travels. 

And during these unbroken and unvarying geographical and 
topographical descriptions; an act of Parliament passed in 177-4, 
adopting and confirming the same boundaries, in the same lan- 
guage as the original proclamation. The commissions of the royal 
governors, prescribing the extent of their jurisdiction, and all pub- 
lic and official documents during the twenty years which preceded 
the treaty of independence, contained the same description. AVhen, 
therefore, it was embodied in that solemn instrument, can it be 
doubted that the parties used the terms in the same acceptation in 
which they had always before been received ; meant thereby what 
had always before been intended ; understood, by the highlands des- 
ignated, the same range which had before been constantly known, 
described, acknowledged, and invariably received as such ? There 
is no possibility of doubt. But the proof still proceeds. The defin- 
itive treaty of peace was formed in 1783 ; but the preliminary 
articles were signed in November, 1782 ; and, in February fol- 
lowing, there was a zealous and animated debate thereon in Par- 
liament, in Avhich it w'as strenuously objected, on the one hand, 
and not denied on the other, that, by the boundaries agreed, the 
territory of the United States would intervene, and cut off the 
communication between the capitals of Quebec and Halifax ; that 
is, would embrace the very territory, north of the St. John, which 
is now in contestation. And accompanying those interesting printecj|| 
debates upon that important subject, is also a British map, made 
for the express purpose of illustrating the arguments by present- 
ing the true boundaries according to the preliminary articles, and 
in which the highlands are delineated and located as they had 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 259 

always previously been, and as we still insist tliey should be. 
And, posterior to these debates and this publication, the definitive 
treaty of peace was signed, adopting the preliminary articles of 
peace in hac verba, and the delineations precisely as therein 
described. 

The unvarying current of British authorities does not stop here. 
Maps and documents still continued to be multiplied, all of the 
same character, and in full confirmation of the same geographical 
location of those dividing highlands. Among them, I invite par- 
ticular reference to the following, which I have now before me, 
subject to the scrutiny of every member. 

1783, February 9. — The United States of America, with the British 
Possessions of Canada, Nova Scotia, and of Newfoundland, etc., according 
to the Preliminary Articles of Peace, signed at Versailles the twentieth of 
January, 1783. R. Sayer and J. Bennett. 

1788. — A New and Correct Map of North America, in which the Places 
of the Principal Engagements during the Present War are accurately 
inserted, and the Boundaries, as settled by Treaty in 1783, clearly 
marked. J. Drew. 

1783, April 3. — The United States of America, laid down from the 
Best Authorities, agreeably to the Peace of 1783. By John Wallis. 
London. 

1783, July 16. — An Accurate Map of the United States of America, 
with Part of the Surrounding Provinces, agreeably to the Treaty of Peace 
of 1783. By John Cary. London. 

1782. — The United States of North America, with the British and 
Spanish Territories, according to the Treaty. By William Fallen, 

1783, October 2. — A New Map of the United States of America, with 
the British America, with the British Dominions on that Continent, etc. 
By Samuel Dunn, Mathematician. Improved from the Surveys of Cap- 
tain Carver. 

Bowles' New Four-Sheet Map of North America and the West Indies, 
exhibiting the Extent and Boundaries of the United States, the British 
Dominions, etc. The whole compiled and laid down from the Best 
Authorities. London. 

1784. — Bowles' New Pocket Map of the United States of America, the 
British Possessions of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, etc., as 
settled by the Preliminary Articles of Peace signed at Versailles, the 20th 
January, 1783. London. 

1784, — A New and Correct Map of North America, with the West 
India Islands, divided according to the Last Treaty of Peace, concluded 
at Paris the 20th January, 1783, wherein are particularly distinguished 



260 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

the Thirteen Provinces which compose the United States of North Amer- 
ica. By ^latthew Albert and George Frederick Lotter. 

1784. — Brion de hi Tour's Etats Unis d'Amerique, etc. Paris. 

1783. — A New Map of North America, with the West India Islands, 
divided according to the Preliminary Articles of Peace, signed at Ver- 
sailles, 20tk January, 1783, wherein are particularly distinguished the 
United States, and the several Provinces, Governments, etc., which com- 
pose the British Dominions, and corrected from the original Materials of 
Governor Pownall, Member of Parliament. 

1794. — Same Map. London. 

1794. — A New Map of the whole Continent of America, divided into 
North and South, and West Indies, wherein are exactly described the 
United States of North America, as well as the several European Pos- 
sessions, according to the Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles, 
January 20th, 1783, etc. By Laurie and Whittle. London. 

1794. — A New Map of North America, agreeably to the Latest Dis- 
coveries. London. 

1794 — A Map of the United States of America, with Part of the 
Adjoining Provinces. From the Latest Authorities. 

1795. — A Map of North America and the West Indies. By L. S. De 
La Rochettc. London. 

1800. — America, divided into North and South, with their several Sub- 
divisions, and the Newest Discoveries. By Laurie and Whittle. Lon- 
don. 

1798 — D. F. Saltzmann's Maine. Hamburgh, Carll Ernst Bohn. 

Ibl4. — Map of the 'British Colonies and the United States of North 
America. J. Lodge. 



I have cited no American maps, because I choose to exhibit the 
unvarying testimony of our opponents themselves in continued 
support of our claim. 

The map by Osgood Cotton, however, in 1795, engraved for 
Sullivan's History of Maine, is worthy of attention for its clear 
delineation of the highlands. 

This brings ns down to the year 1814, the date of the treaty of 
Ghent. Up to that period, oiir adversaries never pretended that 
there was any other Northern Boundary than that which avc now 
assert. In negotiating that treaty, the British Commissioners 
requested that the United States should cede to (ircat Ihitain the 
Territory now in dispute, for an equivalent which they were ready 
to give, in order to obtain a direct communication between their 
provincial capitals. The American Commissioners very properly 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 261 

replied that the territory was a part of the State of Massachusetts, 
and no transfer could be made by the United States ; that it was 
not to be admitted even as a matter of discussion. At the request 
of the other party, they assented to an article providing for the 
ascertainment of a certain angle, and the running certain lines ; 
but even that, notwithstanding the erroneous impressions which 
have prevailed, does not recognize the existence of any doubt or 
dispute as to what were the highlands, or their true location, but 
only that a certain point in that known, acknowledged range had 
not then been marked upon the surface of the earth. The lan- 
guage is very precise, " Whereas that point of the highlands," etc. 

The treaty contemplated that the St. Croix ri^'er was known ; 
that the highlands were known ; but that the precise point of that 
elevation, at which the north line should terminate, had not been 
fixed and raarked, and that there might be, from the formation of 
country, and with a reference to a division of the rivers, a doubt 
as to the extent, perhaps, of five, ten, or even twenty miles. To 
determine that, and that only, the treaty provided for the appoint- 
ment of commissioners, and a contingent arbitrament. 

Under that commission, the British, for the first time, put forth 
the pretension that there Avas another range of highlands south of 
the St. John's river, beginning at Mars hill, a ridge never before 
known ; recognized in no public document ; delineated in no map ; 
found in no topographical description ; having no historical exist- 
ence ; from which are no rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence ; 
and which was never in the contemplation of either of the parties. 
Had the American agent well understood his business, and dis- 
charged his duty, he should have met this preposterous and insult- 
ing pretension, in limine, by a stern refusal to jiermit it to be 
made even matter of discussion. He should have told His Maj- 
esty's agent, " The treaty of Ghent, wliich controls our action, pro- 
vides only for ascertaining a particular point in the highlands of 
the treaty of 1782 ; but, as to those highlands themselves, it 
neither admits nor creates any doubt. They were known, and 
their location established and described, and invariably admitted 
for twenty years preceding the treaty of independ'ence. That 
instrument adopted them ; they are incorporated into it by the 
common consent and mutual understanding of the parties as one of 
its essential ingredients ; they have ever since been known, 
described, and recognized as such ; for more than fifty years, they 



263 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

have maintained their position on the southern bank of the St. 
Lawrence, undisputed, ak)ne, without a ri^■aL I will not now 
permit them to be questioned. I will not tolerate an attempt to 
substitute a newly created imaginary range, for that which the 
parties intended by the treaty. The point in that elevation des- 
ignated as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, I am willing to 
ascertain. But I proceed to no other range. I go in seaixh of 
no other highlands." 

Sir, if our agent had held this language, and acted decisively in 
accordance with it, the British never would have insisted upon 
their absurd assumption. But he permitted it to be discussed. 
The British commissioner, an inhabitant of Ncav Brunswick, anx- 
ious to obtain, by some means, that direct communication between 
the provincial capitals which his Government offered to purchase 
of the United States at Ghent, denied our rights, and the differ- 
ence was then submitted to arbitration. The arbiter, having lost 
more than one-half his dominions after the submission, and being 
thrown as a dependent on Great Britain and other European pow- 
ers, not only to define the limits of his empire, but even for his 
existence as a sovereign, having no hopes or fears from us, and 
little partiality for our liberal ideas of self-government which had 
recently cost him so dearly, and still held him in jeopardy, rec- 
ommends such a new line of demarcation as will give to Great 
Britain precisely what she wished to obtain by purchase and ces- 
sion at the treaty of Ghent. And this we are now urged to adopt, 
for the purpose of conciliating the good opinion of the nations of 
the earth. Sir, if we would not incur their contempt for our 
blindness or pusillanimity, if we would not sacrifice our own self- 
respect, we should repel it as an unauthorized assumption, and a 
glaring encroachment. But we are asked, \\'hat will be the con- 
sequences of a refusal to accede to this advisory opinion ? How 
is the controversy to be adjusted ? Will not war be the conse- 
quence ? That there may be difficulties, I freely admit. That 
Great Britain Avill protract, and harass, and annoy the borders, 
and subject them to vexations and danger, is not improbable ; but 
that she will go to war for a cause so grossly and outrageously 
unjust, for a pretension so recent, so utterly and palpably baseless, 
I cannot believe. But, if she shall push her aggressions to that 
extremity, if the alternative is presented of sacrificing our soil and 
our citizens, or defending them by arms, as freemen, as American 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 263 

citizens, as guardians of the rights, the honor, the security of the 
nation, we can have no doubts, no hesitation. If M^ar must come 
in such a cause, tremendous as the evil is, deprecate it as we may, 
still we must meet it. 

Sir, there is, in such case, no option. Submission never yet 
set bounds to encroachment. We must erect an impassable bar- 
rier upon the confines of our right and our honor. There, we 
must meet and repel every aggression. Justice demands it. Pol- 
icy demands it. If we yield, if we recede, the spirit of encroach- 
ment will be strengthened and aggravated. More, more, and 
more yet, will be demanded. We must basely surrender all, or 
fight at last, and that, too, under all the disadvantages of the 
enfeebling, degrading, dispiriting efiects of previous unavailing 
submission and concessions. 

Suppose Great Britain should assert a claim of right to impress 
American seamen, and proceed forcibly to assert it, by taking even 
a single man from on board our ships. Would not this nation rise 
en masse to vindicate his rights, and avenge his wrongs, by arms ? 
And, sir, shall we permit her to come upon our soil, to hold 
dominion over our own citizens, even to seize them in their dwell- 
ings, to expel our Government and laws from their appropriate 
sphere, and not repel it by force ? No. Never — never. Honor, 
faith, policy, constitutional obligation, public and private right, 
all — all forbid it. 

Maine, as a member of this Union, has a right to require pro- 
tection from foreign encroachment. She does demand that the 
integrity of her soil and the sacredness of the persons of her citi- 
zens shall be preserved inviolate. No matter whether the extent 
and numbers invaded be great or small, you cannot permit one 
acre of her territory, or a single individual of her inhabitants, to 
be wrested from her by a foreign grasp. 

I have not dwelt upon the value and importance of the regioti 
in dispute. I have discussed only the question of right. That is 
sufficient. But let it not be supposed to be of trifling moment. 
It comprises more than two millions of acres, embracing rich and 
valuable lands on the waters and branches of extensive rivers, and 
bearing heavy and valuable timber. But it is its military adapta- 
tions that have attracted the eager eye, and aroused the strenuous 
efforts, of our opponents, and which should induce an equal anxi- 
ety and more fixed determination on our' part to retain it. 



264 NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 

By our possession, the communication between their provinces 
is cfFectually cut off; and, by this severance, we can hokl them in 
check at pleasure. But, should they be permitted to occupy it, 
they will erect fortifications, and establish a military post at a cen- 
tral pobiition, where the whole force of the adjacent provinces may be 
easily concentrated, not only to strengthen themselves to repel 
attacks, but even to menace us with invasion. 

Although Maine cannot, will not, yield her right, yet far, very 
far, be from her a disposition, a willingness, to involve herself or 
the country in the horrcrs of war. She will bear and forbear as 
long as endurance is a virtue. She Aviil, I trust, act with calmness 
and discretion. She will preserve her claim in undiminished 
strength, keeping herself in a position to assert it, practically and 
effectually, whenever, in the contingencies and revolutions of gov- 
ernments and empires, she may deem it as expedient as it is just. 

I protest, therefore, against this subject being discussed as a 
question of peace or war, and being decided as a matter of mere 
general expediency. ISlaine stands modestly but firmly upon her 
rights. She asks nothing more. She can accept of nothing less. 

The resolutions of the Legislature of Maine, passed in secret 
session, contemplating a contingent transfer of this territory to the 
United States, have been animadverted upon, not only as consti- 
tuting an objection to the strenuous support of our right by the 
Senate, but as rendering the whole a matter of indifference. I 
am apprehensive, sir, that they may be calculated to weaken our 
cause, and impair the force of our appeal. The gentleman from 
South Carolina, (Mr. ]Millcr,) has declared that, while the Legis- 
lature of Maine stood resolutely and simply upon their rights, he 
sympathi/cd with them, and had a strong desire to maintain them 
in their dignified and manly attitude ; but, since their tone has so 
changed as to contemplate a cession, he has become utterly indif- 
ferent to their cause, viewing it no longer as a matter of State 
pride, honor, and dignity, but as a mere calculation of profit and 
loss, which can excite neither sympathy nor respect. Indeed, he 
indulged in still stronger language of condemnation. 

Now, sir, I Mould most earnestly appeal to that gentleman and 
to the Senate, whether the indulgence of such impulses is not 
doing injustice to the State — the people of the State. Let me 
assure you that the change of views and feelings indicated by the 
secret proceedings of the Legislature, so far from meeting a bar- 



NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 265 

monious response from their constituents, have been received by a 
general, if not universal, note of popular disapprobation. Sir, the 
people, the true, primary sovereigns of Maine, have never author- 
ized or assented to any suggestion of a relinquishment of any por- 
tion of their soil, or their fellow citizens, and, from their char- 
acter, their history, as well as the strong recent demonstrations 
of their feelings and opinions, I am confident they never will. It 
is in their behalf that I appeal. Their representative I am. Their 
rights I vindicate ; and, for their protection, I demand the broad 
shield of the constitutional obligations of the whole Union. 



POSTAGE. 



POSTAGE. 



When Mr. Sprague was in the Senate, the rates of Postage were very 
high. They were graduated according to distance, and in some cases 
were six or eight times as much for a single letter as at present. Any 
paper enclosed, however small, doubled the charge. Mr. Sprague endea- 
vored to obtain a reduction, but without success. Congress would not 
consent to any diminution ; and it was not until several years afterwards, 
and when private expresses had encroached upon the income of the depart- 
ment and threatened to absorb nearly all the business between the Atlantic 
cities, that a change was effected. 

Mr. Sprague addressed the Senate several times upon the subject. His 
remarks in one debate only are here given. That debate arose upon a 
Resolution offered by himself, and many members of the Senate partic- 
ipated in it. 



REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 



In Senate, December 31, 1832. 

The following Resolution, offered by Mr. Sprague, being taken up for 
consideration : 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Road, be instructed 
to prepare and introduce a bill reducing the rates of Postage. 

After some adverse remarks by Mr. Grundy, the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Post Office : 

Mr. Sprague said, that he had presented the resolution in this 
form, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Senate 
whether there should be a reduction of the rates of postage or not. 
He did not offer the resolution in the usual form of instructing 
the committee to make an inquiry, because, to speak frankly, the 
subject had been before the committee during the whole of the 
last session, and he was not aware that any report had been made. 
If he was in error on this point, he hoped he should be corrected. 
He had, during the last session, presented several petitions, pray- 
ing for a reduction, and having felt himself bound to pay some 
attention to these memorials, he had, from time to time, made 
inquiries of the committee, as to the progress of their investigation 
into the subject, and had been informed that they were attending 
to it ; but he had never been apprized of any report which had 
been made. What, he would ask, were the opinions of the com- 
mittee on the subject ? There had been a report on the reduction 
of newspaper postage, but it was confined to that branch. There 



g72 REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 

had been five petitions, at the least, for a reduction of the postage 
on letters, which had not been acted on. The report on the 
neM'spapcr postage was discussed at the last session ; and he pre- 
sumed that members might probably be prepared to come at once 
to a decision on the reduction of the letter postage, and to make 
it peremptory on the committee to report a bill, the details of 
which, and the amount and the mode of reduction, might then be 
the subject of a future discussion. 

As to breaking in upon the treasury for the support of the Post 
Office Department, it was certainly a question of some moment, but 
he was not aware that the divorce between the treasury and the 
department had ever been complete. There never had been a 
period when the treasury had not contributed to the support of 
the departfhent. For several years, an annual amount of about 
seventy thousand dollars had been appropriated out of the treasury 
for the support of the officers of the post office. It had been for- 
merly said that, in an account current, the Government would be 
found to be indebted to the department. The Government, it was 
said, was indebted to the amount of half a million annually for the 
postage of the executive departments, and the privilege of frank- 
ing all documents and communications. It would be no great 
evil if the Treasury should pay for these services. As it stands 
now, the channels of information for the people were taxed for the 
benefit of the Government. It appeared to him that the diffiision 
of knowledge, of information, through the country, which ought 
to be, and he presumed was, the primary object of the Post Office 
Department, made it important that the cost of this transmission 
should be reduced to as low a rate as possible. This was one of 
the avowed means of diffusing information among the people, 
against which there existed no constitutional objection. Were 
other means of communicating knowledge suggested, constitutional 
objections were at once raised. But here, through the Post Office 
Department, a mode presented itself which was not liable to such 
exception. By its agency, knowledge can be transmitted to the 
extremities of the Union ; and it was important that the diffusion 
of that intelligence, which Mas the life-blood of the community, 
essential aHkc to the Avell-being of the people and of the Govern- 
ment, should be at as low a rate as possible. 

The Senate had been called on to reduce other taxes, which 
were said to be oppressive upon the people, and why not this ? 



REDUCTION OF POSTAGE, 273 

If the Government were required to pay their quota, it might 
enable the department to reduce the general rates of postage one- 
half ; for, taking the average annual amount of postage at two mil- 
lions, and estimating the Government postage at half a million, 
the general reduction would not be more than five hundred thou- 
sand dollars to bring the aggregate down to one-half He thought 
that the Post Office ought to be called on to make a reduction 
equal to the Government postage. 

He would not urge any observations on the subject of the 
unproductive post offices, but would conclude with expressing his 
hope that the Senate would make the instruction peremptory. 

The debate in which the foregoing remarks were made, were continued 
at the next sitting of the Senate, which was on the second of January, 
when Mr. S. again addressed the Senate as follows : 

Mr. Sprague said, that the reasons which he had presented on a 
former day in favor of the original resolution, had, in his opinion, 
received no satisfactory answer. He did not now intend to reca- 
pitulate them, but merely to notice, very briefly, the remarks 
which had just been offered in favor of the amendment. The 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bibb) says that a reduction of four 
and a half per cent, would be but a trifling affair, unworthy of 
attention, and inconvenient in its operation. But who has pro- 
posed such a reduction ? Not my resolution, nor any gentleman 
who has sustained it ; nobody but the honorable member himself 
has suggested four and a half per cent, as the extent of the dimi- 
nution. It is his own proposition, then, which the gentleman 
pronounces to be insignificant and vexatious, and I certainly have 
no disposition to interpose between him and his offspring. The 
chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads 
(Mr. Grundy) has presented, in various forms, and under all its 
aspects, the objection that a reduction will involve the necessity 
of calling upon the national treasury. It is repeated and reiterated 
that the department should sustain itself; that, if you once allow 
the precedent of calling for any aid from the treasury, no bounds 
or limits will or can be prescribed to its inroad, and horrible pic- 
tures of extravagance and ruin are conjured up by the affiighted 
imagination. One would think that to receive aid from the gen- 
eral funds of the Government was a violation of uniform practice 
and fixed principles, when, in fact, the Post Office Department has, 
18 



274 REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 

ever since the organization of the Government, required aid, received 
annual appropriations from the national treasury. For several 
years last past, those demands have averaged nearly seventy 
thousand dollars. The new precedent, against which the note of 
alarm is sounded so loudly, is found in truth to have been the 
uniform practice from the first days of the department to the pres- 
ent moment. This simple fict, I trust, will be sufficient to dispel 
extravagant apprehensions, and enable us to look calmly at the 
justice and expediency of the proposed measure. 

The original proposition simply and singly declares that there 
shall be some reduction of the rate of postage. The amount, the 
mode, the items, and the time, are left to the consideration of the 
committee and the future determination of the Senate. Now, sir, 
to the only objection which has been urged, that the department 
will not be able to sustain itself, there are several satisfi\ctory 
answers : 

First, that a reduction of some of the rates of postage does not 
necessarily involve a diminution of the receipts of the department ; 
on the contrary, there is good reason to believe that rendering the 
transportation cheaper, in some particulars would increase the 
amount. Take, for example, double and treble letters ; the 
smallest piece of paper, a bank bill enclosed, duplicates the 
tax, without increasing the labor of transportation. If the expense 
was less, would not the number be increased ? Would not thou- 
sands of such letters be put into the mail that are now intrusted 
to a more precarious and procrastinated conveyance by private 
hand; and by proper restriction as to weight, public convenience, 
and the revenue of tlie department, both be advanced ? I might 
also adduce, in further illustration, cases of short distances, and 
easy communication, where private, to a degree, supplant public 
conveyance. But the principle that a reduction of the rate of tax 
may increase the revenue, is too well known and established to 
need illustration ; and yet the assumption that it must and will 
certainly diminish the receipts, is the foundation of the objection 
to the resolution. 

But sujjpose the revenue from postage should be diminished, it 
would not necessarily rc(|uirc supplies from the treasury ; it might 
be met by greater economy in the disbursments of the depart- 
ment ; by a less amount of extra allowances made at the mere 
discretion and uncontrolled will of the Tostmaster General to 



REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 275 

contractors ; by a less liberal or lavish expenditure for unprofit- 
able and unnecessary routes. In these respects, there has been, 
and still is, a wide and almost unlimited scope for the mere dis- 
cretion of the Postmaster General. No department of this Gov- 
ernment has so much patronage, and so little responsibility ; and 
this has arisen from the ideal divorce between this and the other 
branches of the public service. " The post office sustains itself," 
is the reply to all complaint, and the shield against all scrutiny. 
It seems almost to have claimed and enjoyed immunity from 
investigation, by folding itself in its own robes, and saying it 
" sustains itself." But how does it sustain itself? Is it not by a 
tax upon the people ? Is it not by the money of our constitu- 
ents ? Shall we not, then, inquire to what extent this burden is 
necessary, and whether it is levied upon principles of justice ? 
You or I, sir, and other officers of the Government, and the Gov- 
ernment itself, enjoy an immunity from this tax. " Free " is 
subscribed upon our communications, and they are transported to 
the remotest corners of the Union without charge ; but at whose 
expense ? From whom does the department draw the money 
which pays for this transportation ? Is it not by the postage paid 
by private citizens ? They then pay not only the expense of 
conveying their own letters and newspapers, but those of the 
Government also. The packages, books, and documents, thus dif- 
fused, are not for the benefit merely of those who pay the postage, 
but of the whole country. The benefit is general ; should not 
the burden also be general ? 

The postage upon Government documents would be half a mil- 
lion of dollars a year. This department, then, not merely " sus- 
tains itself," but contributes by its labor half a million of dollars 
annually to the aid of the Government. It saves that amount to 
the national treasury. Suppose, then, that this — the worst conse- 
quence that has been apprehended or predicted by any one, the 
payment from the treasury of the Government postage — should 
ensue from the proposed reduction of rates, would there be any 
injustice ? Nay, sir, is it not necessary, in order to preserve the 
principles of equal taxation for common benefits? 

The present rates of postage are essentially the same as those 
established forty years ago, in the infancy of the country ; when 
the wants of the Government were urgent, and the experience of 
the department nothing ; when the roads were bad, the difficulties 



276 REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 

of transportation great, and the business transacted small. Since 
that time, there have been, throughout the whole country which 
was traversed by the mails when the rates were originally estab- 
lished, a wonderful, an astonishing increase in the facilities of 
transportation and the amount of business ; and yet this tax upon 
the diffusion of light and knowledge is kept up to its full original 
amount. And still the department, which originally sustained 
itself, cannot now, we are told, bear a reduction, because, in that 
event, it will not be able to stand upon its own revenues. Why 
will it not be able to stand alone ? Because of the continual 
enlargement of facilities and expenses upon unproductive post 
routes, and the extension of the franking privilege. If this 
argument is allowed to be sound, the time can never arrive when 
the citizens of any portion of the country can anticipate a diminu- 
tion in the onerous burden upon the circulation of information. 
No matter what improvements they make, at their own expense, 
in the construction of highways, railroads, and canals ; even if 
the}' reduce the expense to the Government to less than half its 
original amount, while the increase of business may more than 
quadruple the receipts from postage, still the money thus drawn 
from them will forever be expended by the Postmaster General. 
Thei'e will always be contractors and agents asking extra allow- 
ances ; there will always be a desire for an extension of the frank ; 
there will always be new, and unprofitable, and unnecessary routes 
to absorb the Avhole funds ; and we shall always be told that the 
head of the department has made arrangements to expend the 
whole revenue ; and, therefore, we must never touch the rates of 
postage. It has been objected that those who receive the benefit 
of the mails should pay the expense. If so, the Government, 
then, should pay for the amount of its accommodation, and the 
unproductive routes should meet their own expenses. But this 
is more than I ask. As the matter now stands, the Government 
transportation, and the unproductive mails are both thrown upon 
the productive routes, to the subversion of equality and justice. 

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bibb) has heretofore 
strongly advocated an abolition of tliQ postage on newspapers ; 
and, as my proposition is simply that there shall be some reduction 
of the rate of postage, I had confidently anticipated that it would 
conciliate liis support. But, although still in favor of a reduction, 
he is opposed to instructing tlie committee to reduce, lest they 



REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 277 

should not make the particular modification which he has at heart. 
He fears to give the committee so much latitude of discretion, and 
yet he is in favor of this amendment, which has no other effect 
than to enlarge that discretion. He will not trust the committee 
with a limited power as to the particulars in which the reduction 
shall be made, but prefers a proposition which gives them every 
latitude, not only as to the items and amount, but whether there 
shall be any reduction or not. I had hoped, sir, that the original 
proposition, being single, simple, and unencumbered by details, 
would command the support of every member who is in favor of 
any diminution ; and, notwithstanding his argumeut, I hope we 
shall yet have the vote even of the Senator from Kentucky 
himself. 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 



MR. CLAY'S COMPROMISE. 



On the 12th of February, 1833, Mr. Clay asked leave of the Senate 
to introduce his celebrated Compromise Bill, respecting the Tariff. The 
question of granting leave was debated with much animation, in a 
crowded Senate. Mr Sprague made a brief speech, which is here given. 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 



MR. CLAY'S COMPROMISE. 

In Senate, February 12, 1833. 

The question being on granting leave to Mr. Clay to introduce a Bill 
to modify the various AcJs imposing duties on Imports, 

Mr. Sprague said, time enough had not yet been afforded to 
determine whether he should be able to give this important bill 
his ultimate support or not. That would depend upon a more 
deliberate examination of its principles and details. The only 
question now before the Senate was, whether leave should be 
given to introduce it, whether it should be laid before the Senate. 
If the gentleman from Georgia (Mr, Forsyth) had confined him- 
self simply to his constitutional objections, he (Mr. Sprague) 
would not have arisen. But what had the Senate heard ? What 
was the condition of the country ? Disquited, disturbed, almost 
convu.lsed ; laws annulled ; violent resistance to their enforcement 
threatened; apprehension of disaster and ruin on the one hand, 
and civil war on the other, spreading far and wide. Already the 
din of preparation is borne upon the southern breeze ; and we 
may almost hear the clangor of arms. On all sides of the House, 
and from all quarters of the House, they had heard the anxious 
hope expressed, that some measure might be devised which 
should give peace to the country. It was their solemn and offi- 
cial duty to seek, anxiously to seek, and embrace, measures of 



284 MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 

tranquillity. A proposition to that efFctt, from a source entitled 
to the highest consideration, is presented to us, accompanied by 
an explanation conciliatory in its language, and elevated in its 
sentiments. How has it been met, and that, too, by a Senator 
from that section of country Avhich raised aloud the cry of oppres- 
sion, and Avhich the bill proposes to relieve ? In the first place, 
by a sarcasm upon the honorable mo^er! By telling the gentle- 
man from Kentucky that a measure of peace comes with peculiar 
propriety from him, who, of all men, had most contributed to the 
distraction which pervades the country. Is this the mode in 
which tranquillity is to be restored, by repelling propositions with 
reproaches upon its author ? Are the feelings thus excited in 
order to produce harmony and concord ? 

But the gentleman did not stop there. The feelings of all 
who have heretofore sustained the great American system, were 
assailed in a manner to excite any emotions but those of concilia- 
tion. The gentleman sounded the note of triumph and victo'y, 
vaunting as over a fallen foe, and denouncing punishment and 
retribution ! He would not even receive from them propositions 
of peace ; unconditional submission seemed to be demanded. 
One would have thought that they Avere suppliants at his feet, 
and that he could trample upon them with impunity. But he 
warned the gentleman against trusting to so gross a delusion. 
They are yet erect, with ai-ms in their hands, and vigor and spirit 
to wield them with effect. If war is to be waged, he will find 
that the battle is not yet won ; and let him that putteth off the 
harness boast, not him that putteth it on. The time for his shout 
of victory and triumph has not yet arrived. Triumph over 
whom ? the friends and supporters of protection — the North, 
Middle, and AVestern sections of our country ! 

In his assumption, that this has emanated from the weakness of 
the friends of protection, the gentleman is in profound error ; it 
proceeds not from their weakness, but their strength. The feeble 
cannot yield with safety or honor ; the powerful may with both. 
It is a proposition from the strong to the weak ; and it is because 
they are strong, that they can make the concession with dignity. 
Does the gentleman suppose that the little cloud that lowers in 
the Southern horizon, the speck of war there risen, has already 
overwhelmed the Avhole Northern, iSIiddle, and Western country .' 
has brought them to unconditional submission ? He much mis- 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. g85 

takes the temper of the times. The spirit of concession which 
he sees, is not the offspring of fear, but forbearance ; it is from 
the magnanimity of conscious power, and which nothing is more 
likely to destroy, than an imperious tons of demand in those 
towards whom it is extended. 

There is yet another ground of objection. He says, if this bill 
should be generally popular, if it should be everywhere received 
with favor, the effect might be to arrest the progress of a measure 
in the other House, and defeat an adjustment. That is indeed a 
danger which few would have had the sagacity to discover. The 
popularity, the acceptableness of a measure, being so great as to 
supersede all others, is to be the means of preventing the desired 
arrangement from being accomplished ! To other minds, this 
would have appeared to be one of its greatest recommendations. 

Mr. S. said he wished to repeat, that he had not had an oppor- 
tunity to give that deliberate examination to the principle and 
details of the bill which would enable him to say, at this moment, 
whether it should receive his support or not ; but he was anxious 
to have it legitimately and regularly before the Senate, and hoped 
the leave asked would be sjranted. 



THE TARIFF. 



MR. CLAY'S COMPROMISE BILL. 



The preceding speech was made on the question of granting leave to 
Mr. Clay to introduce his Compromise Tariff Bill. Leave having been 
granted, the Bill itself subsequently came up for discussion. Mr. 
Sprague made the following remarks thereon. 



19 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 



MR. CLAY'S COMPROMISE. 

In Senate, February 25, 1838. 

A Bill to modify the various Acts, imposing duties on Imports, being 
under consideration, 

Mr. Sprague said : As senators, we act not in our own right, 
but as public agents. This acknowledged truth is one of the 
reasons which induce me to give this measure my support, confi- 
dent that, in so doing, I shall accord with the wishes of my constit- 
uents, the people of Maine. In the same truth, also, is found an 
answer to the suggestion that, in sustaining this bill, we bind our- 
selves by pledges, which must control our future course of legisla- 
tive action. 

We are agents. The extent of our authority is known to all. 
It is expressly defined in the constitution. "VVe cannot go beyond 
it. We cannot bind the people, our successors, nor even our- 
selves, in our representative character, by this act, further than by 
all other acts of legislation. While in force, it will be law ; but, 
at all times, subject to revision, modification, or repeal. If the 
people shall acquiesce in and confirm it ; if public sentiment shall 
be adverse to renewed and continued agitations of the subject ; if 
the various sections of the country shall, on the whole, prefer to 
settle down in peace and tranquillity upon this basis, — agreeable 
and disagreeable, in some respects, to all, — then, indeed, it will 



292 MODIFICATION OF THE TAKIFF. 

be permanent and enduring. But if it shall be the deliberate will 
of our constituents to change or abolish it, they will do so, and 
that too by the instrumentality of ourselves, or our successors, 
their servants here. I wish, therefore, to be distinctly imderstood, 
that if, from knowledge hereafter acquired, or events which shall 
hereafter transpire, I shall be convinced that the wishes and inter- 
ests of my constituents, and of the country, shall require a revis- 
ion or entire repeal of this act, I shall hold myself not only at 
liberty, but constrained by public duty, to attempt it But, at the 
same time, I must declare my confident belief that the period will 
not soon arrive when public sentiment will tolerate any material 
alteration of its provisions, or in effect to disturb the compromise 
which it embraces. The circumstances under which this law is 
adopted ; the agitations which it quiets ; the convulsions which it 
arrests ; the dangers and miseries which it averts ; and the har- 
mony and tranquillity Mhich it restores ; the magnitude and dif- 
ficulty of the subject itself; the conflicting opinions and hostile 
passions which it has generated ; and the manifest importance to 
every branch of domestic industry, that the incalculable mischiefs 
of fluctuating legislation should cease, and protection, even if more 
moderate in degree, be established by a permanent and enduring 
system ; and the evident necessity, with reference to the peace and 
safety of the country, that violent sectional conflicts should not be 
renewed, are the highest and strongest guaranties for its future 
immunity from successful attack. 

The alleged pledges which have been so strenuously objected 
to are supposed to be contained in those clauses which declare 
that certain things may, and others may not, be hereafter provided 
for by law. Such provisions are not unprecedented. In a bill 
which has passed this body at the present session, disposing, for a 
limited time, of the proceeds of the public lands, will be found 
declarations equally mandatory and restrictive upon future legis- 
lation. The second section provides that Congress may, notwith- 
standing that act, hereafter reduce the price of the public lands, or 
transfer them to the States. In the fourth section, " the power is 
reserved of assigning, by law," to new States, their proportion of 
the proceeds. The fifth section requires Congress, hereafter, 
annually to appropriate at least eighty thousand dollars for sur- 
veys, and prohibits the increase of the minimum price of the pub- 
lic lands. And yet no one objected to that bill as containing 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 293 

pledges constraining our future action. No one doubted, or can 
doubt that, if it shall become a law, it will, at all times, be sub- 
ject, in all its parts, to revision or repeal, at the pleasure of the 
Legislature. 

It has been vehemently urged that this bill abandons the prin- 
ciple of protection, and impairs the constitutional powers of the 
Government. So far from an abandonment of that principle, it is 
preserved throughout, and in every section. The first preserves 
a proportional protection, upon the basis of the act of last session, 
until the year 1842. The second section is introduced avowedly 
and palpably for the sole purpose of protecting a certain class of 
woollens, not only until 1842, but after that period. The third 
provides for cash duties and home valuations, with a view to pro- 
tection. The fourth adds to the existing list of free articles until 
1842 ; and the fifth makes further additions after that period, for 
the purpose of aiding manufactures, by furnishing commodities 
necessary for their successful prosecution at the cheapest rate, or 
to make the necessary reduction of the revenue, by removing im- 
posts from non-protected articles, which do not enter into compe- 
tition with our own productions, and reserving expressly the right 
of discrimination in the laying of duties. The sixth section pro- 
vides a remedy for any deficiency or excess of revenue prior to 
1842 ; also preserving the discriminating poAver. With what jus- 
tice or propriety, then, can it be said that the bill abandons the 
principle of protection ? Those who seriously insisted upon this 
must have mistaken the principle for the degree. The amount of 
protection is diminished. The manner in which this is accom- 
plished has also been the subject of animadversion. For eight 
years to come, it is agreed that it is ample, and receives all that 
the friends of domestic industry could reasonably desire. But, 
beyond that period, the reduction is alleged to be too great, and 
accomplished by a very objectionable process of equal diminution. 
In considering this part of the subject, it is to be constantly borne 
in mind, that it is agreed, on all hands, that some reduction must 
be made in order to bring down the revenue to the wants of the 
Government. The payment of the public debt has left a con- 
siderable annual surplus, which, all concede, cannot be usefully 
expended, and must not be permitted to accumulate. Eesolutions, 
declaring that there ought to be a reduction of the revenue to the 
necessities of the Government, have been offered by several of the 



294 MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 

fast friends of the American system, particularly by the gentlemen 
from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, (I\Ir. Wilkins and Mr. 
Webster,) and acquiesced in by all. The manner seems no^Y to 
be the only debatable question. Theoretically, the best mode 
would doubtless be to take each article by itself, and decide solely 
with reference to its intrinsic merits, and with an impartial and 
disinterested view to the best interests of the whole country. But 
who is there so hallucinated as to imagine that such a course will 
be actually adopted in practice ? Do we not know that each and 
every item "svill have its peculiar friends, avIio, from local inter- 
ests, will strenuously exert themselves to rescue it from the threat- 
ened reduction, to except it from the general system, and throw 
the depression and loss upon others ? Hence inevitably must 
result a conflict between the various subjects of protection ; the 
friends of each struggling to keep up their own objects of peculiar 
favor as high as possible, leaving the reduction of the revenue to 
operate the prostration of others. In such a contest, I have good 
reason to apprehend that the woollens interest, that in which my 
constituents, the farmers of Maine, and indeed of all New Eng- 
land, have the greatest stake, — wliich, indeed, may be considered 
the great New England interest in the protective system, — will be 
overwhelmed and sacrificed. I have, for years, anxiously watched 
the process of building up and breaking down tariffs ; of increas- 
ing and diminishing protection ; and have observed that there is 
one interest which seems to have ruled over others, literally as well as 
metaphorically, with a rod of iron. I Mell remember that, in the 
year 182G or '7, when a bill Avas before the other House to give 
to the woollens manufactures the protection which had been in- 
tended to be raised by the act of 1824, but which had been 
impaired by the counteracting legislation of Great Britain, all that 
was contemplated, all that was asked, was a restoration of actual 
protection, which former laws had designed. The comparative 
justice of the measure Avas so plain and palpable, that it seemed to 
command general favor, until a distinguished gentleman from l*enn- 
svlvauia, now our minister at the court of St. Petersburg, rose and 
denominated it a New England bill ; a Boston and Salem bill ; 
declaring that, as it proposed no increase of protection for Penn- 
sylvania interests, it ought not to be adopted. From that moment, 
opposition became formidable, and continued to strengthen, until 
the measure was finally defeated. This gave rise to the celebrated 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 295 

Harrisburg Convention, and the tariff of 1828, tlie formation and 
progress of which, in the House of Representatives, is well known, 
in which liberal and excessive favor was extended to iron, and 
comparatively scanty and meagre protection doled out to the wool- 
lens. The Senate made some material corrections. This act car- 
ried the protective tariff to its zenith. Its declension commenced, 
and we all well remember the character and progress of the reduc- 
ing act of 1832. Discontent in one section of our country had 
become loud and vehement. Petitions and remonstrances, persua- 
sion and denunciation, thickened upon us. Concession — conces- 
sion was the word. Compromise and conciliation were in the 
mouths of gentlemen on both sides, among whom the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wilkins) was not the least prominent. 
A sacrifice was to be made to calm the storm of sectional discon- 
tent ; and what was the offering ? Was it iron, which is of such 
universal demand, not only at the South, but in every city, vil- 
lage, and cottage, within the broad borders of these United States ? 
O, no. That interest was too strong. The great central political 
power of Pennsylvania sustained it ; but the woollens, the devoted 
woollens, were the selected victim. The coarse fabrics — negro 
cloths, as they are sometimes designated — ^were absolutely, at one 
fell swoop, brought down to the nominal duty of five per cent.; 
and all the valuable establishments and meritorious manufacturers 
engaged in their production immolated to appease the angry and 
threatening spirit of Southern discontent. Nor was this all. While 
there was scarcely more than a filing taken off the iron, wool, and 
the other fabrics of that material, were essentially reduced. The 
bill, as it came from the other House, was, in this respect, amended 
in the Senate, to give additional aid to that interest. The other 
branch disagreed to these amendments. A committee of confer- 
ence was appointed, and the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. 
Dickerson,) who has so long and so ably presided over the Com- 
mittee on Manufactures, and who, from interest and local position, 
has always had a peculiar devotion to iron ; and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Wilkins,) whose eye never winks when 
that preponderating production of his State is in question ; and a 
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Hayne,) who was the uncom- 
promising enemy of all protection, constituted that committee on 
the part of the Senate. These were the champions sent forth by 
this body to be the guardians and defenders of the woollens inter- 



296 MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 

est in a contest with the House. And how did they bear them- 
selves in the fiekl ? Two surrendered at once ; and tlae other, 
having predetermined to submit, held out but for a moment, and 
then claimed the merit of having " died hard." Every amend- 
ment of the Senate, in favor of the woollens, was abandoned : and 
our own committee joined with their opponents in recommending 
that the House should insist, and the Senate recede, in every par- 
ticular. Their report was adopted. During the present session, 
we have had further developments. If I may be permitted to 
allude to the proceedings in the other branch of the National Leg- 
islature, we have there seen a bill reported by the standing Com- 
mittee on Finance, and well understood to be in accordance with 
the views of the Executive, by which the general system of domes- 
tic protection is cut down to the bone ; while this favored item of 
iron is exempted from the general demolition, and touched so 
lightly as to be but little affected. The report which ushered in 
the bill, states that the duties are thereby arranged " at rates of 
from ten to twenty per cent.," varying from these, however, in 
the case of iron. That was to be still left a monument of sparing 
mercy. The spirit of destruction passes it by. The lightning, 
which blasts almost every other prominent object, leaves this 
unscathed, glancing lightly over the great central political power. 
The measure before us has the merit of impartiality. jNly hon- 
orable friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) is the first who has had 
the justice and the courage to present a scheme of equal reduction. 
And this feature, which has been made the ground of vehement 
objection, is to me one of its recommendations, because it is the 
nearest approximation to justice to the wool and woollens of any 
system which I have seen, or expect to see proposed, from any 
quarter capable of insuring its adoption. The loudest complaints 
against this bill are heard from the gentlemen from Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey, the devoted advocates of iron, which they assure 
us will be more reduced than other articles. That, sir, is because 
its protection is now higher than others, beyond all just and due 
proportion. It amounts to seventy or eighty per cent., or even 
more. My constituents are great consumers of that article. Our 
shipping requires an immense quantity ; our mills demand much ; 
every mechanic, farmer, and laborer, is a purchaser. There is 
not a man who drives a plough, or wields a hoe, axe, or a ham- 
mcM-, who raises a hill of potatoes, drives a nail, saMs a board, sails 



MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. 297 

a boat, or casts a hook into the sea, who is not in some degree 
interested in the reduction of the price of iron. Ever since I 
have had a seat in Congress, I have protested and struggled 
against this heavy duty. It was one of my strongest objections to 
the tariff of 1828 ; and I have ever since sought its material 
reduction ; but it has been hopeless, until the introduction of this 
bill. I am willing to extend reasonable protection to that article ; 
I would by no means prostrate it ; but I would set bounds to its 
exorbitant demands, and terminate its controlling dominion over 
others. I agree, sir, that a better theoretical mode of reducing 
the tariff may easily be prepared, and arguments of much force, in 
the abstract, may be urged against it ; but I have no hopes of see- 
ing any better carried into practice. Who that knows any thing 
of the condition of our country, the conflicting opinions, the 
opposing interests, the warring prejudices, the raging passions of 
different sections ; who that sees that the various and immense 
local interests involved in the tariff may be made the elements of 
political combinations, appropriated as the trading capital of 
bargaining politicians, can expect a system of reduction by the 
selection of items for specific duties, either by the present or next 
Congress, which will be theoretically correct or practically just ? 
As Avell might you expect a ship to cross the Atlantic, amid vary- 
ing currents and conflicting storms, upon a straight line, laid down 
with mathematical correctness in the calmness of the closet. No, 
sir ; since this difficult and arduous voyage must be made let us 
apply all our sagacity to adapt our course wisely and prudently to 
the state of the elements by which we must be borne along, and 
which cannot be subjected to our control. But the greatest of all 
recommendations of this measure is, that it promises peace, har- 
mony, and tranquillity to this agitated and distracted country, the 
preservation of this invaluable Union, this great temple of human 
liberty, the citadel of the rights of mankind. It is the bow of 
promise in the troubled sky ; the darkening and lowering clouds 
will be dispersed ; the murmurings of the coming tempest will 
cease ; and we may hope that halcyon days of calmness and peace, 
of mutual confidence and fraternal regard, will again return, and 
the glorious ensign of our glorious Union, forever wave over a 
united, free, prosperous, and happy people. 



NULLIFICATION. 



MR. CALHOUN'S RESOLUTIONS. 



The great debate in the Senate, on Nullification, between Mr. Webster 
and General Hayne, took place in the year 1830. The controversy then 
turned upon the true construction of the language of the Constitution, 
upon which Mr. Webster's speech was conclusive. But South Carolina 
proceeded to the extreme of practical nullification, and its advocates 
found it necessary to assume new grounds of justification. They founded 
their arguments upon the nature and essential character of political 
sovereignty. Mr. Calhoun, their great champion, was, in 1830, Vice 
President, and could take no part in the discussion. In 1833, he was a 
member of the Senate, and ofiiered certain resolutions, embodying his 
favorite doctrine. In the debate upon these, Mr. Sprague made the 
following remarks. 



NULLIFICATION. 



MR. CALHOUN'S RESOLUTIONS. 



In Senate, February 26, 18S3. 

Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions, declaratory of the nature and power of 
this Government, being under consideration, 

Mr. Sprague said : That the transcendent importance of the 
topics of this debate had not been exaggerated by the Senator 
from South Carolina. The consequences, said Mr. Sprague, 
ah-eady resulting, and those still more disastrous, which are 
threatened from the doctrines which he maintains, demonstrate 
that they should be regarded with intense interest. The Presi- 
dent has declared that the laws must be enforced, and has called 
upon the National Legislature for the powers necessary to the 
performance of his high constitutional duties as the Chief Execu- 
tive of the United States, The people of South Carolina have 
solemnly declared, that the revenue laws shall not be executed 
within their limits. They have raised their banner, and inscribed 
tipon it in capitals — " No more taxes shall be paid here." They 
have denounced our legislation as oppressive, and proclaimed that 
" they will throw it off at every hazard ; " and they have 
announced, in the most authoritative manner, by a fundamental 
ordinance, that our laws are null and void, and that the passage, 
by Congress, of any act to authorize the use of force against the 
citizens of that State, dissolves her connexion with her sister 



304 NULLIFICATION. 

States. The bill which has passed the Senate, may be considered 
as of that character ; and if so regarded, and the ordinance shall 
be executed. South Carolina will deem herself out of the Union, 
and hold the citizens of the United States, as she does the rest of 
the world, " enemies in war, in peace, friends " We have, 
indeed, the hope that the operation of their ordinance, of their 
extiaordinary replevin act, and their new military law, made to 
concentrate the whole martial energies of the State, may be 
arrested and postponed by the eftbrts of leading individuals. Imt 
a whole people have become deeply excited — not from their own 
feeling of oppression, but by the persuasions of others that they 
were the devoted victims of injustice. The address of the con- 
vention itself, acknowledges that " the difficulty has been great to 
bring the people to the resisting point." The manner in which 
that was accomplished has been described by the Senator from 
South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun.) Tracts, pamphlets, newspapers, 
speeches, and addresses, were scattered, and reiterated over the 
whole surface, to the remotest recesses of the State, till the 
people " received the doctrine." They have been aroused, exci- 
ted, exasperated, wrought almost to desperation, and have hurled 
defiance at their supposed oppressors. The necromancers, who 
have conjured up this evil spirit, may not be able to bid it down. 
Those who have raised the storm, may not have the power to 
allay it. The hand which has kindled the conflagration, may in 
vain attempt its extinguishment. When the fountains of the 
deep are broken up, and ocean waves are heaving, who shall say 
that thus far shalt thou go and no farther .' They have raised the 
wind, and may have to reap the whirlwind ; they have " scattered 
firebrands, arrows, and death ; " they may not now say, " Am I 
not in sport ? " 

We hope for the best. But no prescience can foresee the ulti- 
mate effects of our measures, and in their adoption, we occupy a 
position of oppressive responsibility. It behooves us to consider 
well, to deliberate profoundly upon the fundamental principles of 
our action. For, if we are wrong in this question of constitu- 
tional powci" — if we have no legitimate authority or moral right 
to pass the bill, then it may well deserve the denunciations which 
the fervid eloquence and burning zeal of its opponents have 
poured forth. But, if they are wrong, if it be a rightful author- 
ity which they resist, and if their decrees shall be carried out in 



NULLIFICATION. 305 

action, they must be content to have their conduct branded by its 
true appellations — lawless violence, rebellion, treason. 

What, then, is the question at issue ? What are the doctrines 
arrayed in opposition to that bill ? It is insisted that no allegi- 
ance is due to the United States ; that the highest and paramount 
obligation of every citizen is to his own State ; that, when she 
speaks, every man within her limits is bound to obedience, even if 
the command be resistance to the authority of the General Gov- 
ernment ; that this obligation is absolute, unqualified, and uncon- 
ditional, leaving no right of inquiry into the correctness of the 
command, and no question to be made whether the laws of the 
General Government are constitutional or not. The Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) declared, that, if it were conceded 
that the tariff laws were all perfectly constitutional, and that the 
national Judiciary had the unquestioned jurisdiction and ultimate 
right of decision, still that the bill could not be justified, because 
it authorized force against individuals, who were constrained, by 
higher and superior obligations, to bow, in blind and absolute sub- 
mission, to the paramount power — the State sovereignty. He 
stigmatizes it as worse than a barbarian outrage ; that it is not, 
as some have declared, war upon a State ; but a savage attack 
upon the citizens, passing by and disregarding the community, 
the sovereign, who rightfully controls their action. 

The Senator from North Carolina (IMr. Mangum) insisted that 
he is bound to obey the sovereign voice of his State, whether she 
be " right or wrong." And the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Calhoun) enforced the same sentiments. They both con- 
tend that the State throws its shield of legislation over its citizens ; 
no external power, not even the United States, can have any right 
to penetrate that a?gis, to touch any individual within its territory ; 
that, when a State law shall anul, conflict, or be inconsistent with 
the laws, treaties, or constitution of the United States, the latter 
are to be disregarded, and the former unconditionally obeyed. 

Now, sir, the constitution of the United States has expressly 
declared that, in such cases, the State laws shall yield. It was 
foreseen by the convention which framed the constitution, that 
such conflict and incompatibility would necessarily arise. The 
greatest difficulty which they had to encounter was from the pride 
and tenacity of State independence. The inherent and fatal vice 
of the old confederation was, that the Continental Congress had 
20 



306 NULLIFICATION. 

no power over individuals, but only addressed itself to States in 
their aggregate character as independent communities ; and when 
the new constitution adopted the appropriate remedy, by creating 
a government to make laws, a Judiciary to expound them, and an 
Executive to enforce them directly upon every person within the 
boundaries of the United States, it was at once foreseen that, as the 
several States had also the power of legislation over the same per- 
sons, within their respective limits, the Liavs of these two govern- 
ments would be very likely sometimes to come in conflict. They, 
therefore, wisely made provision for such an event, and gave the 
supremacy to the laws of the Union. The sixth article declares 
that " this constitution," and all '^ laws made in pursuance thereof," 
and " treaties " — shall be the supreme law of the land, * * * 
" any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary 
notwithstanding." And yet gentlemen now assert, and vehe- 
mently and strenuously insist, that the laAVS of the State are to be 
supreme laws, any thing in the constitution or laM's of the United 
States to the contrary notwithstanding ! How is such a conclu- 
sion attained ? By what process do they escape from the express 
language and palpable meaning of the organic law ? I have 
curiously and anxiously read and listened to their reasonings upon 
this subject, and find that they undertake to control and subdue 
the constitution by certain abstract notions of original unchangea- 
ble sovereignty. When scrutinized and analyzed, it will be found 
that the fundamental position which they assume is that the people 
could not, had not the power, to make such a constitution as this 
purports, on its face, to be ; and that its plain meaning is to be 
restrained and overruled by an assumed political dogma. Their 
course of argument is this ; The constitution was adopted by the 
people of the several States, acting as distinct communities, which, 
before its adoption, were independent sovereignties. This, sir, I 
have no disposition to controvert ; but their next proposition is, 
that sovereignty is, in its nature, indivisible and inalienable ; and 
therefore could not be transferred by the States, and, of necessity, 
is retciined by them unimpaired ; that not a particle belongs to the 
United States ; and, as the sovereign power is always sujareme, the 
State is paramount to the United States. Their fundamental 
postulate is, that sovereignty is inalienable ; and from this all 
their consequences are deduced. 

The address of the convention which passed the ordinance places 



NULLIFICATION. 307 

their doctrines upon this foundation. Referring to the constitu- 
tion, it says: "A foreign or an inattentive reader" * * * 
*^ would be very apt, from the phraseology of the instrument, to 
regard the States as having divested themselves of their sover- 
eignty, and to have become great corporations, subordinate to one 
supreme Government. But this is an error ; the States are as 
sovereign now, as they were prior to their entering into the com- 
pact." Correctly speaking, sovereignty is a unit. It is one indi- 
visible and inalienable. It is, therefore, an absurdity to imagine 
that the sovereignty of the States is surrendered in part and 
retained in part. The federal constitution is a treaty, a confeder- 
ation, an alliance. And again : the great expositor of this doc- 
trine (Mr. Calhoun) has told us that the sovereignty is still " in 
the people of the several States," " unimpaired ; not a particle 
resides in this Government ; not one particle in the American 
people collectively." After admitting that the States have dele- 
gated certain powers to the General Government, he proceeds : 
" But to delegate is not to part with or impair power. The dele-^ 
gated power in the agent is as much the power of the principal as 
if it remained in the latter ; and may, as between him and his 
agent, be controlled or resumed at pleasure." It cannot be 
denied that the constitution purports to impair the sovereignty of 
the States, and to establish a new Government over their citizens. 
But it is insisted that the language of the constitution is not to 
decide its character — (Mr. Poindexter ;) and that, although from 
its phraseology one would be very apt to regard the States as hav- 
ing divested themselves of their sovereignty, yet such a thing is 
impossible, in the nature of things, and therefore has not been 
done. The people have attempted it, indeed ; but, being in itself 
impracticable, of course, it has not been accomplished. Sover- 
eignty is inalienable ! This single abstraction, this figment of the 
imagination, this naked political dogma, restrains the whole peo- 
ple, disables them from accomplishing their purpose, limits and 
controls the constitution, annulling some of its provisions, and 
reversing others. The whole fabric of nullification, curiously and 
ingeniously wrought, compacted by intellectual strength, enriched 
by the treasures of learning, and gilded by the splendors of genius^ 
rests, like an inverted cone, upon this little dogma — a metaphys- 
ical chimera, an airy nothing ! 

Sovereignty is inalienable ; and, if delegated, resumable at 



308 NULLIFICATIOX. 

pleasure, and without revolution. Who were the original sover- 
eigns ? Individuals. Each came from the hands of his INlaker 
sovereign and independent, owing no allegiance, and subject to no 
earthly power. May every man, at pleasure, resume his original, 
indivisible, inalienable sovereignty ? The first step in the prog- 
ress of society was the formation of families ; next, patriarchal 
tribes ; and then, their amalgamation into States or nations. And 
may those be resolved at pleasure into their original elements by 
the rightful resumption of primitive inalienable independence ? 

The whole history of the hviman race falsifies the assumption, 
that sovereignty is inalienable. Every page records its transfer, 
by free consent, by purchase, by rebellion, revolution and con- 
quest. Take Great Britain for example. May the three nations 
— nay, may the ancient heptarchy, which have been swallowed up 
in that kingdom, now resume their former separate independence, 
and that, too, without revolution? But, not to recur to the fruit- 
ful records of former ages, look at modern Europe, and its trans- 
mutations in our own age, and then say that sovereignty is not 
transferable. In a single place, this political, metaphysical impos- 
sibility has been actually overcome no less than five times within 
thirty years. Coblentz was attached to the dominions of the 
Elector of Cologne, afterwards united to the French republic, 
and then to the French empire ; and successively to the Grand 
Duchy of Berg, under Murat ; to the Grand Duchy of Baden ; 
to the kingdom of Westphalia, and, after the prostration of Bona- 
parte, to Prussia. Turn to our own country. I ask these gen- 
tlemen, has Kentucky any sovereignty ? How did she acquire 
it? She was once subjected to Virginia. There was but one 
sovereignty ; and as that was indivisible and inalienable, how can 
Kentucky have one particle ? I ask again, with still deeper inter- 
est, has Maine any sovereignty, having once been a portion of Mas- 
sachusetts ? But I request the particular attention of gentlemen 
to the condition of Louisiana. Is not that State equally sovereign 
with South Carolina, Virginia, or any other ? Was it always so ? 
Was it not transferred by Spain to France, and from France to 
the United States ? Was not sovereign dominion held over it by 
all those Powers successively ? Before its erection into a State, 
was it not our territory, our purchased property, subjected to our 
control, governed by our will, without ever having had, for a 
moment, the shadow or pretence of independent sovereignty ? 



NULLIFICATION. 309 

Was it not made a State by our act ? And if, as gentlemen con- 
tend, the United States have not one particle of sovereignty, 
whence, and in what manner, has Louisiana acquired her sover- 
eignty ? Could the United States impart it, having none them- 
selves ; and not only impart, but render it transcendently para- 
mount to the express provisions of the constitution controlling or 
annulling them ? Do the United States hold delegated powers 
from Louisiana, which she may resume at pleasure — resume what 
she never possessed ? Should she take to herself the powers only 
which she enjoyed prior to her supposed delegation of them by 
the constitution, she must restore herself to her anterior condition 
of territorial submission — and this by way of vindicating her sover- 
eignty ! How is it now with the territory of Florida ? and what 
sovereignty will the United States confer when we shall have 
admitted her into the Union ? 

The constitution provides for the admission of new States formed 
by the junction of two or more States, or parts thereof; but, as 
sovereignty is now found to be inalienable, this provision is there- 
by rendered utterly nugatory. 

The doctrines against which I am contending are as novel as 
they are extraordinary. They find no place in the history of the 
formation, adoption, or cotemporaneous expositions of the consti- 
tution. They were then terra incognita, and have been but 
recently discovered through the modern telescope of political met- 
aphysics. 

In the establishment of our present constitution, the great, 
prominent, and popular objection of its opponents was its suprem- 
acy and paramount authority over the States, its subtractions from 
State sovereignty. Its friends found it necessary to encounter this 
most formidable objection, by their utmost strength of fact and 
argument. All their ability was exerted to overcome it ; their 
utmost ingenuity to obviate it. And yet not one of its framers in 
the general convention, of its supporters in the State conventions, 
or of its numerous expounders, commentators, and advocates before 
the people, ever suggested the rights and doctrines of nullification ; 
which, if they had had any existence, would at once have silenced 
the most formidable battery, and satisfied the most extravagant 
jealousy of State independence. So far from denying the fact of 
the paramount authority of the United States, they manfully and 
successfully defended it. The general convention itself, upon the 



310 NULLIFICATION. 

consummation of their work, in communicating it to the States, 
through the Continental Congress, admit and answer it, declaring 
that " it is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of 
the States, to secure all the rights of independent sovereignty to 
each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all." 

This new school in politics teaches that the several States have, 
by the constitution, only delegated certain powers, which each 
may resume at pleasure. The United States have the poAver to 
declare war ; but each State has the reserved right to annul it, 
and be herself at peace ! The United States may make treaties ; 
but each State may, ad libitum, revoke this authority, and termi- 
nate the compact ! Express prohibitions are imposed upon the 
States. They may not declare war, make treaties, coin money, 
emit bills of credit, pass ex post/acto laws, or those impairing con- 
tracts ; and yet every State h;is reserved the right, at any moment, 
to cast off all these prohibitions ! She is fettered, indeed ; but just 
so long only as it may be her sovereign will and pleasure ! And 
actually to throw off all these restraints, to resume all these pow- 
ers, is not revolution. It is legal, peaceable, constitutional rem- 
edy ! It is pursuant to the constitution, within its scope ; and the 
State is still a member of the Union ! ! The United States, the 
Constitution, and the Government, it is said, are but agents, — a 
mere aggregation of delegated powers ; yet the agency may be 
revoked, the delegation terminated, and the Constitution and Gov- 
ernment remain ! It will be no revolution ! Can any thing be 
more preposterous ? 

Sir, we all admit the original, inalienable right of man, individ- 
ually and collectively, to resent oppression, to overturn and destroy 
Government, when, by perversions and corruptions, it has become 
subversive of the ends for which it was instituted But this is the 
primary right of force — of revolution — of rebellion, by Avhich 
government is overthrown and subverted. It is not pursuant to 
the law of the land. It is above and beyond it. It is in defiance 
of oppressive legislation. Can the destruction of the Government 
be legal ? Can the anniliilation of the constitution be constitu- 
tional ? The distinguished member from South Carolina (^Ir. 
Calhoun) has referred to the danger to which their slave prop- 
erty might be exposed, if his doctrines be not established, AVill 
he permit me to warn him of the greater danger of superseding 
the securities of the constitution ? Let him beware how he appeals 



NULLIFICATION. 311 

from the plain stipulations of that instrument to the original and 
inalienable rights of man. Let him not lead the way in a course 
of reasoning which points directly to the inquiry, by what means 
one-half of the human beings upon the soil of South Carolina are 
held in absolute dominion as property by the other ; how their 
natural and sovereign rights have been cloven down and trans- 
ferred to their masters. Be not wise beyond what is written- 
Abide by the Constitution. That is your best and highest secur- 
ity. From that solemn compact we will not depart. We have 
no inclination to disturb it, nor to refine away its guaranties. 
They are the work of our fathers, and let them be forever sacred. 
We have witnessed much controversy as to the origin of the 
Constitution. In my judgment, it is the work of the people of 
the several States acting as separate communities. It was drafted 
by a convention, and proposed to the States ; but, until their adop- 
tion, it was a mere proposition, an unexecuted instrument, having 
no efficiency. The ratification by the people of the several States 
imparts all its validity. They, having all power, could make it 
any thing that they pleased. The people of Virginia and Mary- 
land, for example, might agree to commingle in one mass ; to 
amalgamate ; to become, as by fusion, one people ; abrogating 
entirely their State institutions, and forming a new single Govern- 
ment over a single community ; or they might make a league, a 
mere confederation ; or foi'm a union anywhere between these two 
extremes, participating of both, embracing such extent or degrees 
of each as to them might seem fit. And the same remark may be 
extended to the other States. Having this power, the only ques- 
tion is. How did they exercise it ? — What union did they form ? 
The answer is to be found in the instrument itself — the Constitu- 
tion, It has been much contested whether it is federative or pop- 
ular. It is neither — it is both. In its origin, and in the sources 
of the organization of the Government, it is federative. In the 
action of the Government upon all those subject to its powers, it is 
popular. The laws are made for, and reach and operate directly 
upon, individuals, passing by the local Governments^ and penetrat- 
ing beyond them, and scarcely recognizing the existence of the 
States as communities. The Judiciary is coextensive with the 
legislative power. Such being my view of the fundamental law 
of this nation, I cannot recognize any right in a State to arrest and 
repeal the legislation of Congress. I dare not withhold my sup- 



31;2 NULLIFICATION. 

port from a measure which seems essential to the maintenance of 
the Government and the Constitution. If the Lcgish\ture of the 
nation shouhl refuse to uphohl and vindicate them at such a crisis, 
they must fall, and their authority be prostrated, I fear, forever. 
I could not forget the past, nor shut my eyes to the fact that the 
present alarming extent and threatening form of resistance and defi- 
ance have been consequent upon the tolerated practical nullifica- 
tion of the State of Georgia. The gentleman from South Caro- 
lina nearest to me (Mr. ^Miller) has assured us that such is the 
fact. Attempts have been vainly made to find a distinction 
between the two. In principle, they are identical. I regret that 
the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Forsyth,) in his endeavor to 
render his defence of the one consistent with his condemnation of 
the other, has deemed it necessary to assail the Supreme Court of 
the United States, — to pronounce the reasoning and argument of 
one of its most important decisions to be unworthy the lowest 
county court in any of the States ! I can assure the gentleman 
that the country regards it far otherwise, and that the most vigor- 
ous and gifted minds deem it one of the most powerful produc- 
tions of the wonderful intellect of the revered chief of that august 
tribunal. If, in the inscrutable ways of Providence, our institu- 
tions are destined to be subverted, and left in ruins by the co7ivul- 
sions of revolution, that decision, and other kindred constitutional 
opinions from the same mind, will remain to after generations, 
splendid and enduring monuments of intellectual and moral great- 
ness, and, like the broken columns and classic remains of Athens 
and Palmyra, be the wonder and admiration of successive ages. 
The time has arrived when the progress of nullification must be 
arrested, or the hopes of permanent union surrendered. The 
gentleman (Mr. Calhoun) assures us that his theory would make 
this Government a beautiful system ! Beautiful as would be the 
proud and polished pillars which surround us, if resolved into their 
original rude and paltry pebbles ; beautiful as the dashed mirror, 
from whose fragments are reflected twenty-four pigmy portraits, 
instead of one gigantic and noble original ! 

The triumph of that doctrine dissolves the Union. It must be 
so regarded by foreign nations ; it is almost so even now. Already 
have the exultations of the oppressor, and the laments of the phil- 
anthropist, been heard beyond the Atlantic. They have looked 
with fear and hope, with wonder and delight, upon the brilliant 



NULLIFICATION. 313 

and beautiful constellation in our western hemisphere, moving in 
majestic harmony, irradiating the earth with its mild and benig- 
nant beams. Shall these stars now be severed and scattered, and, 
rushing from their orbits through the troubled air, singly and 
feebly sink into clouds of murky blackness, leaving the world in 
rayless night ? Shall the flag of cur common country, the ensign 
of our nation, which has waved in honor upon every sea, the 
guardian of our common rights, the herald of our common glory, 
be severed and torn into twenty-four fragments ; and our ships 
hereafter display for their protection but a tattered rag of one of 
its stripes ? 

The gentleman (Mr. Calhoun) declares emphatically that this 
is a question of liberty or despotism. I believfe it. In my con- 
science I believe it. If this Union be dissolved, despotism is the 
ultimate result. It requires no prophetic vision to see how it will 
be accomplished. Draw the line where you will, wars — frequent, 
inevitable wars — ^will ensue. Border nations have been consid- 
ered natural enemies. History is little more than a record of their 
contentions. Human nature is not changed on this side the 
ocean. Indeed, there is hardly a nation, in any age or continent, 
which has given more unequivocal proof of devotion to military 
achievement, and a spirit of martial adventure, than the people of 
these United States. 

Their ha\dng been once friends, so far from preventing or 
retraining, would but aggravate their mutual animosity. The 
sweetest substances become the most acrid by perversion. Frater- 
nal feelings, corrupted or perverted, give new bitterness and inten- 
sity to hatred and revenge. "We have already had tAvo wars with 
Great Britain, who once held toward us a parental relation ; and 
who can doubt that they would have been more frequent had we 
been separated only by an imaginary line ? The different sections 
of the country, arrayed in arms each against the other, would 
know no bounds to their mutual exasperation. We should be 
told, in relation to the slave population, what the British Parlia- 
ment were with respect to the Indian savages, — that they were 
arms which God and nature have put into our hands. It would, 
indeed, be a sacrilegious abuse of that hallowed name ; but the 
argument would prevail ; a servile war would be kindled. Re- 
lentless and fiendlike passions would be let loose to rage with 
unbridled license ; and violence and havoc, conflagration and devas- 



314 NULLIFICATION. 

tation would ensue, — the horrors of which could be depicted only 
by the imagination of a ISIilton or a Dante. It would seem that 
the severe regions of the North would have less to apprehend 
from hostile invasions. Southern chivalry, even if not in requi- 
sition for the defence of their own sunny lands, would find little 
to invite them to arctic expeditions. Would they come to our 
rugged soil and more rugged clime, to our rock-bound shores and 
snow-capped hills ? Would they penetrate a dense and teeming 
population of hardy, laborious, and unyielding freemen — every 
valley a Thermopylae, and every hill a Bunker's — where " friends 
may find a welcome, and foes a grave ? " The North is by nature 
the region of strength. It has been so from the days of Attila, 
King of the Huns, to PlatofF, hetman of the Cossacks. The 
Northern hive would again swarm upon the blooming and hon- 
eyed fields of the South. But is there any consolation in this ? 
In such a contest, victory is disaster, and defeat is death. If this 
Union shall be severed, free Governments will, for a while per- 
haps, exist upon its fragments. But on both sides of the divid- 
ing line must speedily arise a chain of fortified places and military 
posts, for protection against sudden incursions of predatory and 
border w^arfare, to which they are eminently exposed. Standing 
armies, to occupy these fortifications, and to repel the formidable 
danger of organized invasion, are the necessary consequence. A 
martial spirit will be everywhere excited, and military ambition 
universally dominant. One party will obtain success and advan- 
tages in the war, to counteract which the other must give addi- 
tional strength to the executive arm. The first will resort to the 
same expedient to regain their preponderance, and the weaker will 
then concentrate all their power in the hands of one man, that it 
may be wielded with the most efficiency for their protection. Im- 
minent danger of destruction, and the primary laAV of self- 
preservation, will silence the voice of liberty. Civil power will 
be merged, and military despotism wave its horrid and resistless 
sceptre over the ruins of the republic. 

This Union is not only the citadel of our liberty, but the depos- 
itory of the hopes of the human race. He who ehall be its 
destroyer will go down to future ages, associated, indeed, with its 
founder, the Father of his country — but with a contrasted immor- 
tality. No halo of glory will surround his brows, but on his head 
will gather the hissing curses of all generations — horrible as the 



NULLIFICATION. 315 

snakes of Medusa. He will stand on the highest and blackest 
eminence of infamy — the detestation of mankind. If he meet not 
a traitor's death, he will fill a traitor's grave ; over which there 
will be no requiem but the groans of the oppressed and the exe- 
crations of the good. His monument will be of human bones, 
upon foundations slippery with human blood. However high 
may have been his elevation, his fall will be like that of Lucifer ; 
and, like him, sinking into his bottomless and boundless habita- 
tion of darkness and woe, he may exclaim : 

" Hail, horrors, hail ! And thou, profoundest hell, 
Receive thy new possessor." 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



The first speech of Mr. Sprague on the arrangement of the Colonial 
Trade with Great Britain, was made on the 3d of April, 1832. He then 
exposed the character, and predicted the effects of that arrangement. 
The two following speeches were made after the consequences had been 
developed by experience. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



WEST INDIA ARRANGEMENT. 



In Senate, Januaby 3, 1834. 

The following resolution, offered by Mr. Sprague, being under consider- 
ation, viz: 

i?eso?i'erf, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to communicate to 
the Senate, so far as the Documents and Belurns received will permit, the Amount 
of Trade between the United States and the British North American colonies, the 
British West Indies, the Danish West Indies, and the Swedish West Indies, 
since the 30th day of September, 1832, distinguishing the Amount of American, 
British, and other foreign Tonnage, which has entered and departed to and from 
those Places respectively, or the United States generally. Also, the Amount of 
Imports and Exports of American and Foreign Produce, distinguishing between 
the same : 

Mr. Sprague said, that his object in offering this resolution 
was to obtain an official statement of the present condition of the 
trade with the British colonies, insular and continental, lying in 
this hemisphere. This was considered a subject of deep interest 
some years ago, and he was persuaded it had lost none of its 
intrinsic importance. It was known that this subject had been a 
matter of controversy between the United States and Great Brit- 
ain from the existence of the Government up to the year 1830, 
when the celebrated " arrangement," as it had been denominated, 
was made of the colonial trade. It was strictly a question of 
navigation, affecting the carrying trade of the United States. The 
whole matter of controversy was, whether the United States 
21 



323 COLONTAL TRADE. 

should have an equal and fair participation in the carrying its own 
produce from this country to the ports for -which it Avas ultimately 
destined, or Avhether an undue advantage should be given to 
Great Britain. Up to the year 1830, from the superiority of the 
American navigators, and the natural advantages which their 
country possessed from position in relation to that trade, the 
I'nited States had had nine-tenths of the carrj-iug trade existing 
between it and the British colonial possessions. The amount of 
British tonnage did not equal one-tenth of the American up to the 
period he had mentioned. How far it had been increased since 
the arrangement of the carrying trade in 1830 would be seen by 
the public documents. During the first year after this arrange- 
ment, the British tonnage in the direct trade to the West Indies 
arose to ninety-six per cent., and to the North American colonies 
exceeded the American ; for every 100 tons of American there 
were 110 tons of British ; and, in the succeeding year, ending 
September 30, 1832, the trade seems to have been still more 
diverted in the circuitous route through the northern colonies in 
British bottoms. The tonnage which departed from the United 
States was, in the direct trade, 66,769 American, and 19,357 
foreign ; while, to the North American colonies on our borders, 
there were G6,056 American, and 146,292 foreign — the foreign 
more than doubling the American. 

The M'hole amount of tonnage which cleared from the United 
States for the British AVest Indies and British American colonies, 
both during the year ending September, 1832, was 132,825 
American, and 165,649 foreign. Thus the foreign tonnage, 
which, prior to the arrangement, was less than one-tenth, has, 
under and by virtue of that diplomatic arrangement, actually ex- 
ceeded the American ! Such M'ere the facts disclosed by the doc- 
uments heretofore communicated, a tabular statement which he 
then held in his hand, -well worthy the attention of the Senate ; 
and he wished, by means of the resolution which he had offered, 
to ascertain the state of the trade to the most recent date. 



COLONIAL TEADK 323 

Statement of Tonnage employed in the Trade with the British West Indies 
and British North American Colonies, before and since the West India 
Arrangement. 

BEFORE THE AERANGEMENT. 

Average of American and foreign tonnage for ten years, from 1821 
to 1830. inclusive ; with the proportion which the foreign bears to the 
American. 

Proportion Foreign 
Am. Foreign. bears to Am. 

British West Indies, 50.078 4,043 8 per cent. 

British Am. Colonies, 77,492 7,467 9 6-10 " 

SINCE THE ARRANGEMENT. 

1831. 



British West Indies, 36,440 16,937 46 7-10 " 

British Am. Colonies, 77,737 85,916 110 5-10 " 

1832. Tonnage departed from the United States. 

British West Indies, 66,769 19,357 28 9-10 " 

British Am. Colonies, 66,056 146,292 221 4-10 '' 

The resolution was then adopted. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



COLONIAL TRADE. 



WEST INDIA ARRANGEMENT. 



In Senate, Januaky 28, 1834. 

A Report from the Secretary of the Treasury, presenting a Statement 
of the Trade between the United States and the British and Foreign West 
India ports, and the British North American Colonies, being communica- 
ted to the Senate : 

Mr. Sprague observed that this report was in auswer to a res- 
olution submitted by bis colleague, (Mr. Shepley,) some time 
since, and adopted when he was unfortunately absent from the 
Senate, and, therefore, he did not hear the remarks which accom- 
panied the presentation of the resolution. He had seen the state- 
ment presented by that gentleman, and he asked the attention of 
the Senate, while he commented briefly on it, together with the 
facts presented by the report just read ; and he congratulated him- 
self, and the State which he had the honor, in part, to rejiresent, 
that his colleague had turned his attention to the subject. He 
(Mr. Sprague,) had full confidence that they would agree as to 
the facts and inferences that were to be deduced therefrom. From 
the beginning of this Government — nay, anterior to the establish- 
ment of the constitution — the subject of the carrying trade between 
the United States and the West Indies was considered one of deep 
interest to this country ; and, up to the year 1830, a diplomatic 
and legislative controversy had been carried on between the two 
countries, the object of which, on both sides, was to secure to 
itself the advantage of tonnage to be employed in that trade. 



328 COLONIAL TRADE. 

Great Britain had ahvays been desirous to procure the products 
of the United States for her "West India Ishmds. Their situation, 
and the peeuliarity of their productions, was such, as to render 
our own productions essential — he had ahnost said — to their 
existence, but certainly to the prosperity of those islands. The 
object that the British had always in view, was to procure the 
transportation of those articles to the West Indies in British ves- 
sels. The object of the United States, was to secure to them- 
selves a fair participation in the carrying trade, and to avail them- 
selves of the advantages which their local and geographical situa- 
tion gave them, united with their superior skill in navigation, so 
that their shipping should have the transportation of the produce 
of the United States to the West India Islands. That was the 
whole object, the whole aim of the controversy, as it was carried 
out from the beginning to the end. What were the expedients 
that the British resorted to from time to time ? And let any 
gentleman look to the correspondence and diplomacy on the sub- 
ject, with this key, and it would appear as plain and clear as 
daylight, that the entire object of the British was to secure to 
themselves the whole of the carrying trade. The whole of their 
efforts were directed to that end — not to prevent our produce 
from being carried there. They wanted it ; but wished to get it 
in their own vessels. It would be seen, in their proposition, that 
there was a list of articles, which articles might be carried to the 
North American provinces free of duty, but not to the West 
Indies. Why was that ? It was that our vessels might carry the 
produce they required, across the line, a hundred rods, in order 
that Biitish vessels should take it from thence to Jamaica, Barba- 
does, or any other of their islands. They were willing that we 
should carry it across the line, and give it a circuitous direction, 
if the United States would consent to allow them to take the prod- 
uce in British vessels, from one port to another — our vessels not 
being permitted to trade with the colonics. 

Look at the result of the arrangement which has been made on 
the subject-matter of the controversy. What, he would ask, were 
the deductions made from the statement the other day ?• It was, 
that the British had always desired to have our produce carried in 
their vessels. As to the effects on the tonnage interests of the 
Northern cities, they were clear, and such as must have reason- 
aljly been anticipated. The arrangement, as soon as it Avas made. 



COLONIAL TRADE. S29 

was known to be a surrender of the matter in dispute on the part 
of the United States. It was so considered by Mr. Herries, in 
the British Parhament. He said that the United States had made 
an unconditional surrender of her pretensions, which she had got 
up in relation to that claim, and our own minister at the court of 
St. James, when he received the act of Congress of 1830, said 
that, according to his construction of it, on which he acted, it 
unequivocally surrendered all the claims that had ever interfered 
with the objects of the British. 

Upon these two concurrent authorities, the British, themselves, 
and the Minister of the United States, we had surrendered the 
matter in controversy, and he (Mr. Sprague) supposed there would 
be very little diversity of opinion on the subject — certainly not 
among those who understood it. Taking the statements which 
had been presented, presuming them to be perfectly accurate — 
(for he had not had an opportunity to look into them) — and 
keeping in view the object of the British, let gentlemen look and 
see whether, in effect, the trade has not been diverted, and 
whether it is a direct trade now with regard to exports. 

From the Statement, it would be seen, that the exports to all 
the West Indies are less now, and have been less since the 
arrangement, than in several years before, say in 1823, '4, '5, '6, 
'7, and '8 ; that the exports, in the aggregate, to all the West 
Indies, for the two years since the arrangement in 1830, are less 
than those of any two years before 1830, in the whole term 
embraced by the statement ; that the exports to the British West 
Indies are less now than they were in 1826 ; that the exports to 
the British North American Colonies are more now, and have 
been every year since the arrangement, than they ever weire 
before. For instance, the exports were now $4,425,185, and, 
before the arrangement, the highest amount was $3,830,674. 
Thus the direct trade was less since the arrangement, and the 
circuitous trade was far greater than it ever had been before. 
Having said this as to the exports, he would now proceed to the 
tonnage. The American tonnage in the trade to all the West 
Indies, for the two years since the arrangement in 1830, has been 
less than during any two years prior to 1830 ; while the foreign 
tonnage, in the same trade, has been, during the same two years 
since 1830, much greater — nearly three times as much as in any 
two years prior to that time, and the American tonnage to the 



330 COLONIAL TR.\DE. 

British 'W'est Indies has been less, each year, since the arrange- 
ment, than in several years anterior, ^iz. : 1823, '4, '5, '6. The 
foreign tonnage, in the same trade, has been greater every year 
since the arrangement, than it ever was before ; and has, during 
the last year, been nearly three times as much as in any year 
prior to the arrangement. 

The American tonnage to the British American colonies, was, 
in 1831 and 1832, less than in some prior years; but, in 1833, it 
was greater than ever before, while the foreign tonnage in the 
same trade, was never, prior to the year 1830, more than 12,023 
tons, but, in 1831, was 94,776; in 1832, was 108,671, and in 
1833, was 297,953 ; being more than twenty times as much in 
1833, as ever it was before. He wished the Senate to recollect 
this last mentioned fact. The statements he had made on a 
former occasion, were confirmed by the report just received — for 
it would be seen, that, prior to the arrangement, the British ton- 
nage employed in the trade to the British West India islands, 
and British North American colonies, was not equal to one-tenth 
of the American, but, since, had actually risen to an equal amount. 
Before the arrangement, we had always more than nine-tenths of 
the carrying trade ; but, since, we have but about one-half. But 
even this does not exhibit the actual advantages gained by the 
British, because a great proportion, more than three-fourths, of 
the tonnage we have employed to the North American colonies, 
just cross our lines, and thence the British vessel takes the car- 
goes to the West Indies, having the benefits of the long voyage 
in transporting even those articles which our vessels convey in 
the first instance from our ports. In tlie statements presented, no 
notice was taken of the exports of foreign produce, which British 
vessels alone can take, in direct violation of our statute of 1829. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 



Soon after the accession''of General Jackson to the Presidency, he deter- 
mined to bring all officers and agents of the Government, who were within 
the reach of Executive power, to profess his views and sustain his meas- 
ures. This, by a bold and felicitous misnomer, was called a system of 
reform. Into this system, it was attempted to bring the Bank of the 
United States ; but its President and Directors refused. For this cause, 
General Jackson made war upon that institution. In the progress of that 
war, the Bank resorted to measures which are wholly indefensible, and 
justly brought upon it the indignant condemnation of the public. These 
subsequent misdoings have so reflected back, and been so confounded with 
its previous conduct, as to excuse, in the general mind, the original attack, 
which, when made, was without any ground of justification. In carrying 
on hostilities against the Bank, the President determined to remove the 
public moneys from its custody; a measure so extraordinary, that, in order 
to accomplish it, he was obliged successively to remove two Secretaries of the 
Treasury, of his own appointment, before his order would be obeyed. In 
the session of 1832, Congress had passed a resolution, declaring that the 
public moneys were safe in the Bank of the United States. During the 
recess, the President determined upon their removal. Mr. Lewis McLane, 
then Secretary of the Treasury, was unwilling to comply with the Presi- 
dent's wish in this respect, and was transferred to the Department of 
State. Mr. Duane was appointed in his stead, but he also refused com- 
pliance, and was immediately dismissed from office. Mr. Taney, then 
Attorney General, was appointed in his stead, and gave the order for the 
removal of the Deposits to such State banks as had been selected for that 
purpose. Upon the next meeting of Congress, the Secretary assigned his 
reasons for this act. At a very early day, Mr. Clay introduced, in the 
Senate, a resolution strongly condemning this measure. An earnest and 
animated debate followed, in the course of which, Mr. Sprague delivered 
the following speech. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 



The Senate having under consideration the Report of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, laying before Congress his reasons for removing the Public 
Deposits from the Bank of the United States, and the following resolutions, 
submitted by Mr. Clay : 

1. Resolved, That, by dismissing the late Secretary of the Treasury, because he 
would not, contrary to his sense of his own duty, remove the money of the United 
States in deposit with the Bank of the United States and its branches, in con- 
formity with the President's opinion ; and by appointing his successor to effect 
such removal, which has been done, the President has assumed the exercise of a 
power over the Treasury of the United States not granted to him by the consti- 
tution and laws, and dangerous to the liberties of the people. 

2. Resolved, That the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury for 
the removal of the money of the United States, deposited in the Bank of the 
United States and its branches, communicated to Congress on the 3d day of 
December, 1833, are unsatisfactory and insufficient : 

Mr. Sprague addressed the Senate as follows : 

Mr. President : It is in vain that gentlemen attempt to 
escape from the issue now presented. It is in vain that they 
endeavor to make it a question of the renewal of the charter of the 
bank. The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Forsyth) commenced with 
that declaration, and proceeded in his own speech conclusively to 
disprove it, by declaring himself in favor of a renewal of the 
charter, and arguing long and eloquently in support of the 
removal of the deposits. It is not a question of the renewal of the 
charter ; it is not a question of the restoration of the deposits ; for 



336 EEMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

any one may vote against both, and yet condemn this new stretch 
of Executive power. It is a broad and fundamental question of the 
distribution of the powers of this Government among its co-ordi- 
nate branches ; a question in which, as Mr. Jefferson has profound- 
ly remarked, is involved the existence and preservation of liberty. 
What has been done ? The act which more immediately gives 
rise to this discussion is called " the removal of the deposits ;" 
a name, which, to most minds, carries a very inadequate idea of 
the thing. Permit me briefly to describe it. The Congress of 
the United States, the supreme legislative power of the nation, 
created an artificial person for the sole purpose of constituting 
and continuing it the fiscal agent of Government ; they having no 
power, and pretending to no right, to bring it into existence, or 
continue its being for any other object. This agency was to con- 
sist in its receiving, retaining, and distributing the public moneys, 
and reo-ulating, by its influence and connexion with the Govern- 
ment, the currency of the country. The Execntive has removed 
this ao-ent from office, and appointed another in his stead. The 
former was created, guided, regulated, controlled, restrained, 
and governed by known and fixed laics; subject to visitation by 
committees of Congress ; bound to make frequent reports which 
Cono-ress could reach ; and liable to have its existence terminated 
upon process to be ordered by Congress, if it should transcend the 
law of its being. The latter is the mere creature of Executive will ; 
appointed by him to do what he commands, to abstain from what 
he forbids ; removable by him, governed by no law but his pleas- 
ure ; subject to no visitation by Congress ; bound by no statute to 
make any returns or expositions of its doings. This agent, so 
appointed, is to have in its possession the average amount of six mil- 
lions of public money, to be used or loaned at pleasure, for its own 
benefit ; is to receive and disburse annually, more than twenty 
millions of the public revenue ; to have the use of its notes 
indefinitely increased, by constituting them the cii-culating medium 
of the country, so far as the influence of the Treasury can accom- 
plish that purpose. The treasure and strength thus acquired, 
and the banking capital upon which it is ingrafted, may be dis- 
pensed in purchases and disbursements, in loans and discounts, in 
facilities, accommodations and indulgences to friends and parti- 
sans, to contractors or officers, to central committees or separate 
agents, for speculation and stock-jobbing ; or to swell political 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 337 

funds, direct political action, and consolidate and enlarge political 
influence. 

This fiscal agency is indispensable. It may change forms, but 
it is incapable of annihilation. It is inherent and co-exists with 
civilized communities ; without it, our Government never has had 
and never can have life, motion, or being. It is represented as a 
dangerous, a terrific power. Shall it be under the control of 
Congress, limited, restrained, and suri'ounded by fixed Jaics ? or 
shall it be left to the sole, unguided, ungoverned, undefined will 
of ONE MAN ? Its union with banking capital has conjured up 
in the friends of the administration the most terrific images of ter- 
ror and alarm, even when bound down by fixed legislation, and in 
the keeping of Congress ; have they no fears when it is united 
with three times as much banking capital, under the sole control, 
and at the mere arbitraiy will, of one man ? This great and alarm- 
ing power is now to be added to what, in all free Governments, 
in all ages, has been the most dangerous and alarming of all pow- 
ers — a single Executive chief. This great monopoly, as it is 
called, is to be united with the greatest of all monopolies in human 
society — a single Executive. The Bank of the United States has 
been represented by all sorts of hideous metaphors and compari- 
sons. It is a mammoth — a wild beast to be slain, lest it should 
rend us in pieces, although encaged and chained by the bolts and 
bars of law ; and in its stead the President is to let loose upon us 
a whole caravan of wild beasts ready to flesh their teeth in any 
victim ; and of which he is to be the sole keeper. It is unconstitu- 
tional for Congress to have one bank, but not for the President to 
affiliate, adopt and control a hundred ! 

This measure, momentous as it is in itself, is of still more por- 
tentous import when viewed in its connexion as part of a system, 
as the last only of a series of acts all running in the same direction, 
swelHng the same current of patronage, and accumulating power 
in one great and all-absorbing reservoir. It was not the tea tax 
merely against which our fathers took up arms. Read the Decla- 
ration of Independence — it is not even mentioned as one of the 
causes of the Revolution. It was the form only in which a prin- 
ciple was embodied ; the last of a train of measures for establish- 
ing unlimited dominion. 

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rives) compelled, by the 
overwhelming testimony which is borne upon every breeze, to 

22 



338 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

admit that tlicrc is wide-spread distress in the community, warned 
us not to mistake the symptoms for the disease. His advice is 
wise and scientific ; for, when a limb is convulsed from internal 
agony, to tic it down and keep it motionless can yield no relief. 
"What, then, is the disease ? The gentleman thinks it is found in 
that newly discovered source of all the ills that flesh is heir to, 
that " monslrum horrcnchim ingens infurmc,''^ the United States 
Bank. 

Sir, there is a much deeper, more inveterate, and all-pervading 
disease ; one which is felt in every fibre, and distorts every feat- 
ure of the body politic ; which penetrates the walls of this Cap- 
itol, and, even here, mingles in our debates, and infects our legis- 
lation ; which, like the insect curses of Egypt, enters even our 
bed-chambers and our kneading-troughs, poisoning the very atmo- 
sphere with a political miasma. It is the disease of President- 
making, 

And this has a cause, — a deep, abiding, growing, aggravating 
cause. 

Why is it that the experience of mankind has pronounced an 
elective monarchy the worst form of Government on earth ? Is it 
not that a crown is too splendid a prize to be won or lost by peace- 
ful contests of elections ? And is not the Presidency becoming so 
brilliant an object as to dazzle the eyes of aspirants, and its patronage 
so powerful a stimulant as to inflame, nay, to infuriate the passions 
of friends and partisans ? Does not the successful candidate, and 
all his official dcj)endants, from the first moment of his investiture 
with the robes of office, look to the succession ? Are not the 
political elements constantly agitated ? The lashing waves are 
not permitted to subside, before another storm lowers in the hori- 
zon. And is there not danger that contest will succeed contest, 
convulsion follow convulsion, until the pcoj)le, the honest, single- 
hearted, disinterested people, disgusted and exhausted by the 
endless repetition of fruitless conflicts, will retire from the arena, 
and leave the great machine of Government in the hands of needy, 
hungry, and profligate political adventurers ? Is there not danger, 
when the all-pervading disease is becoming more and more invet- 
erate, when the importance and the patronage of the Chief Magis- 
trate is rapidly increasing ? From the birthday of our constitu- 
tion, the march of executive power has been onward. The course 
of legislative action has often been arrested ; judicial decisions have 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 339 

been questioned and denied ; but the enlargement of executive 
prerogative has never been stayed. No poM'er which it has once 
exercised, no claim of power once advanced, has ever been yielded 
or wrested from its grasp. Its precedents are ti'acks to the lion's 
den, from which there are no returning traces. Do you want 
proof? The examples are before lis even in this debate. The 
gentleman from Virginia (INIr. Rives) held up the decision of 
1789, in favor of a constructive power of removal from office in 
the President, as conclusive authority, at the moment he was deny- 
ing any weight to the decision of 1791, in favor of the right of 
Congress to incorporate a bank. And what renders it not the less 
remarkable is, that the first, giving constructive executive power, 
was made by the casting vote of the then Vice President, the 
elder Adams, to whose political opinions the gentleman accords so 
little deference as to the rights of other co-ordinate branches. He 
cited Mr. Madison's example when it tended to countenance the 
prerogative of the President to arrest the legislation of Congress, 
but denied the same authority when it sustained the right of the 
National Legislature in relation to this very charter, which was 
approved by that great man himself. 

Let us look at things as they exist. Was there ever a period 
when the United States' Government was as strong as now ? — 
when there was so little ability in the States, or other extrinsic 
bodies, to withstand the united, cooperating action of all its depart- 
ments ? Ask the most zealous devoted friends of State rights, 
they will tell you — they have told you, that these rights are pros- 
trate at the feet of the General Government, and exist only at 
its mercy. 

Was there ever a time when Congress was so weak, when the 
Judiciary was so weak, when the Executive was so strong — by 
any comparison so strong — as now ? Was there ever a time when 
the balance and just distribution of practical power was so utterly 
destroyed ? 

Let us not be deluded by names and theories. But, like men 
— practical men — engaged in the affairs of a great nation, let us 
have the courage to look at the aptual workings of this great 
machine of Government, and see results as they are coming upon 
us. Is it not true, in this republican country, where one man 
should be nothing, and the community every thing, that it has 
come to pass that the community is nothing, and one man is every 



340 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

thing ? Do vre not feel and know that the destinies of this nation 
are, at this moment, in the hands of a single individual ? Is it 
not matter of boast — boasted of here, and that, too, by the gentle- 
man from A^irginia, (Mr. Rives,) — that a single individual has pro- 
duced, and is carrying on, a revolution in our Government ? — ay, 
sir, a revolution, in which the gentleman exultingly told us that 
the will and policy of the nation, as to internal improvements, had 
been resisted and defeated by one man ! — in which the great sys- 
tem of American industry, built up and consolidated by the inter- 
ests and feelings of a vast majority of the people, has been pros- 
trated by the will of one man, — in which the Bank, strong as it 
was in its own energies, and the unlimited confidence of the com- 
munity, has been struck down by the same iron hand, and is crum- 
bling into dust? — and, he might have added, in which the wishes 
and rights of a large majority of the States, and their ci'.izens, as 
to the disposition of our vast national domain, have also been 
arrested, baffled, and defeated, by the same uncontrolled power of 
one man. 

And yet the gentleman talks of democracy, and claims to be a 
republican ! Do we not know that the policy, the systems, and 
the institutions which that single power has struck down, might, 
had it been his will, have been now standing and flourishing in 
the greatest vigor ? Do we not feel that a single individual at 
this moment holds the institutions of our country in the hol- 
low of his hand ? — that, should he choose to lay it, in wrath, upon 
the navy of the United States, he would submerge it beneath the 
waves, leaving scarce a trace of its existence, save the reflection of 
its former glory ? — that even the Judiciary would be palsied in 
his grasp ? Who does not remember when, some two years since, 
it was supposed that a judgment of the Supreme Court in relation 
to the Chcrokees would conflict with his will ; that the whole 
partisan press, and all the partisan corps, were rallying to a deadly 
assault upon that august tribunal and its venerable head ? 

How is it at this moment ? Is not this whole nation becom- 
ing agonized in every fibre, at the tones of his single voice ? He 
has spoken, and the currency — the lifeblood of the country — is 
curdling in the veins of this whole republic. His breath is 
spreading blasting and mildew over this fair and happy land, 
shrouding its bright and beaming surface in darkness, gloom and 
dismay. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 3-tl 

Let us revert for a moment to the past. Has not the present 
Chief Magistrate made large encroachments upon the authority of 
the other coordinate branches, and unwarrantably increased and 
extended his own ? 

How has he used that tremendous instrument — the veto power 
— which was transplanted into our constitution from the prerog- 
atives of the British king, but which the spirit of English liberty 
would not tolerate in modern times ; and the monarch, who should 
dare to exert it there as freely as does our republican President 
here, would, as we are well assured, hazard more than his throne. 
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Kives,) in searching for pre- 
cedents to justify its exercise by the present Chief INIagistrate, was 
driven back more than one hundred and forty years for the last 
example in British history, to the reign of William HI., who, he 
told us, Avas brought in by the whigs, and exerted his preroga- 
tive for popular rights. The gentleman has not been as felicitous 
as usual in his historical recollections. True it is, in the revolu- 
tion of 1668, William was brought in by the friends of liberty. 
But how did he use the power thus generously conferred ? The 
historian answers in these emphatic words : 

" Success, which ever enlarges the noble mind, shrunk William's to all 
the littleness of vulgar character. When raised to imperial dignity by 
the efforts of the whigs, for the generous purpose of enlarging and secur- 
ing liberty, he abandoned his benefactors, and entered into dishonest 
intrigues with the tories, in order to increase the influence, and extend tlie 
power, of the crown." 

The gentleman spoke of a faction in the Lords. He did not 
explain himself. But, if his remark had any significance, permit 
me to remind him, upon the authority of the same historian, the 
faction which existed in the Lords was a tory faction, with which 
William united himself to enlarge the prerogatives of the crown. 

When the veto power was about to be incorporated into oiu* 
constitution, it encountered strong opposition. It was distasteful 
to the American public. What was the argument urged to assuage 
their fears ? We have it here in this book, the Federalist, in a 
number written by Alexander Hamilton, while the constitution 
was before the people for their adoption. 

He told them that — 



342 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

"A king of Great Britain, with all his train of sovereign attributes, 
and with all the influence he draws from a thousand sources, would, at 
this day, hesitate to put a negative upon the joint resolution of the Houses 
of Parliament." 

And again — 

" If a magistrate so powerful and so well fortified as a British IMon- 
arch would have scruples about the exercise of the power under consid- 
eration, how much greater caution may be reasonably expected in a Pres- 
ident of the United States, clothed, for the short period of four years, 
•with the executive authority of a Government wholly and purely repub- 
lican." 

It was an a fortiori argument from the long disuse of tliis pre- 
rogative of the British crow^n. He said further, that the primary 
object in giving to the President the possibihty of using this neg- 
ative was self-preservation ; to enable him to resist encroachments 
upon the Executive, and preserve the just constitutional distribu- 
tion of power. 

The fears of the people were thus allayed, and upon these argu- 
ments the veto was given. How has it been used ? During the 
first twenty years, it Avas exercised, I believe, but once or twice ; 
it had subsequently some unnoticed growth in the hands of ISIr. 
Madison ; but, by the present Chief INIagistrate, in less than five 
years, it has been exercised more freely, and on more important 
occasions, than during the whole forty years of all his predeces- 
sors. ISIcmory at once presents some of them : — the Maysville 
road bill ; the Washington turnpike bill ; the lighthouse bill ; the 
Louisville and Portland canal bill -, the bank bill ; the harbor bill ; 
the land bill ; and even the bill allowing interest to certain States 
upon moneys paid by them for the United States during the last 
war, — a measure of justice which, with the approbation of the 
President, had been previously extended to South Carolina, but 
which he chose to negative, upon his own views of mere expedi- 
ency, without pretence of constitutional objection ; claiming and 
exercising the right to control and reject the measures of Con- 
gress upon any occasion, and for any cause, as his views of policy 
might dictate ! And this is republicanism ! Sir, the federal doc- 
trine of that idtra-federalist, Alexander Hamilton, as to this exec- 
utive prerogative, is, in comparison Avith the practice of this self- 
styled democratic administration, as milk and Avatcr to aquafortis. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 343 

That which was intended to be the ^' extreme medicine " of the 
constitution, " has come to be its daily bread." 

But suppose Congress, notwithstanding the potency of execu- 
tive influence, should pass the land bill, or the improvement bills, 
by more than two-thirds of both branches, it would then become a 
law — so says the constitution — but so does not say Andrew Jack- 
son. He has put forth a new prerogative, by which all laws are 
subject to his supervision. He is to support the constitution " as 
he understands it." Constructions by his predecessors, construc- 
tions by Congress, constructions by the Judiciary, have upon him 
no binding obligation ; and, if they do not quadrate with his con- 
stitutional notions, need not be carried into execution. 

And this is not a naked theory. He has practised upon it, not 
only in the vetoes where the doctrine is embodied, but in his refu- 
sal to carry into effect solemn and sacred treaty stipulations, — 
treaties which had been established as the supreme law by the 
constitution itself, and been recognized and enforced from the first 
moment of its adoption ; treaties formed by every preceding Pres- 
ident — Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and both the 
Adamses — ratified by every Senate — confirmed in appropriations 
by every House of Kepresentatives, and sanctioned by the contin- 
ued acquiescence of the whole nation for forty years. He has 
practised upon it in refusing to execute the Indian intercourse act 
of 1802, — approved by Mr. Jefferson, and enforced by him and 
all his successors. 

Pause — contemplate the magnitude of this assumption. Our 
Government was designed to have three great, coordinate branches ; 
the Legislative, to enact ; the Judiciary, to interpret ; the Exec- 
utive, to enforce ; and neither to trench upon the province of the 
other. But the President now sets himself up as supreme judge 
over both the other departments, to review their decrees, and 
rejudge their judgments. TVe may make solemn legislative enact- 
ments, and what can we do with them ? — enter them on record in 
the Secretary's office. The courts may pass their solemn judg- 
ments, and what further can they do ? — record them in the office 
of their clerk. But both are as lifeless as the dead parchment upon 
which they are enrolled, unless the Executive shall impart vital- 
ity and energy by carrying them into action. But, by this new 
prerogative, he may leave the whole, or any part, to eternal silence 
and oblivion. He has only to say to his marshals, or other infe- 



3-i4 KEMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

rior officers, *' Execute no law or process upon pain of instant 
removal," and it is done. The whole statute book is at his mercy. 
Sir, a dispensing power like this is denied to the British king by 
the very first article of the Bill of Rights of William and INIary ; 
and ]Magna Charta, that nearest approach to a written constitution 
in England, is not and cannot be subjected to royal interpretation. 
I say this upon the authority of a book now before me. Long 
and dire experience has there taught them that, if a single Exec- 
utive be permitted to give construction to laws and constitutions, 
to become the interpreter of his own powers — there will soon be 
no other powers in the kingdom, and no constitution but his 
will. 

A king of England or France, who should at this day disre- 
gard the acts of the IjCgislature, or the decrees of the J udiciary, 
would not only shake their thrones, to their foundations, but might 
soon behold in their stead the bloody scaflfolds of Louis, and of 
Charles ! Shall a rcpiiblicaii President have prerogatiA'e over 
both? 

There is one new device for the extension of Presidential 
power, so anomalous and extraordinary, that it is difficult to clas- 
sify or characterize it. It may, perhaps, be denominated the 
splitting veto, or partial dispensation ; by which, as in the case of 
the Michigan road bill, in 1831, the President, when an act of 
Congress is presented, accompanies his approval with an explana- 
tory message, (by way of rider,) limiting and restraining, its 
meaning and import ; thus, in effect, approving in part, and veto- 
ing in part ; whereby a precedent is established, by which, should 
it have its natural growth, if an appropriation bill were to be 
accompanied with conditions and limitations, he might accept the 
agreeable portion which gave the money, and reject obnoxious 
restrictions upon its use. 

Is it not true — disastrously true — that the same hand now 
gi'asps the sword and the pnrsc of the nation ? now controls the 
army, the navy, and the treasury ? We are told that the Presi- 
dent only determines where our treasure shall be kept, and who 
shall have the custody. He has o/ilij power, by his single will, of 
placing the whole or any part of tlie public moneys, in the hands 
of any corporation, or any individual, or any number of individu- 
als, at any time, or any place, upon any condition that may suit 
his pleasure ; that, if a military cxpecUtion, or any other purpose. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. . 345 

were in contemplation, he might make the Paymaster General, 
the Commissary General, the Fourth Auditor, or any other 
officer, agent, or partisan, the depository of the public moneys ! 

Sir, the man who should abstract the contents of your pocket, 
and put them into his own, would only change the place of 
deposit. 

But the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Eives) tells us there is no 
danger, because the President cannot raise money. Did the 
gentleman forget that permanent revenue laws already exist, that 
the streams now flow into the Treasury, from a perennial source, 
to be intercepted only by new acts of legislation, which the veto 
power sfands ready to suppress ? But the President cannot raise 
money — so says the Senator from Virginia, so says the constitu- 
tion; Congress, and Congress only, is to lay imposts, and " borrow 
money'' But, within the last year, the Chief Magistrate, by one 
of his Departments, for which, as his friends all admit, he is re- 
sponsible, whose acts are his acts, has borroived four hundred 
THOUSAND DOLLARS ! And if that sum may be borrowed for the 
Post Office, without law, why may not four millions be borrowed 
for the Treasury, or forty millions for the army ? 

The fathers of the constitution, well knowing that a single 
Executive had, in all ages, been dangerous to liberty, intended to 
erect around him a firm and impassable barrier, in the Senate of 
the United States ; and especially by the requisition of their con- 
currence in appointments to office. 

But ingenuity has found means to evade and nullify this 
inconvenient restraint. The President may temporarily fill vacan- 
cies, which happen in the recess, by commissions, to expire at the 
end of the next session. 

Two implications have been found sufficient to accomplish the 
object. The President, by removal, may cause a vacancy to hap- 
pen, in the recess, which he may fill until the end of the next 
session of the Senate, and then the vacancy, which commences 
with the recess, is construed to be one happening in it, to be again 
filled by the President until the end of another session, when the 
same process may be repeated. Has this been done ? I will not 
dwell upon the notorious case of Indian agents — nominated — 
rejected — and subsequently continued in the discharge of the 
same official functions! I will not pause upon the recall and 



346 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

appointment of foreign ministers. I proceed at once to the case 
of Samuel Gwinn, who was appointed in the recess to a land 
office in jNlississippi ; nominated at the next session, and rejected ; 
renominated, that the Senate might rccujisider their vote, which 
the Senate declined, and laid the nomination upon the table from 
a ■well known determination not to approve it. The session 
expired, and — he was forthwith reappointed to the same office ! ! 
This precedent has but to be followed out, and the power of the 
Senate over appointments is annihilated. Suppose the present 
Secretary of the Treasury — I put the case only by way of illustra- 
tion — who has been appointed in the recess, should be nominated 
and rejected ; he will retain his first appointment until thfe session 
shall close, and then may be instantly reinstated and continued in 
office in defiance and contempt of the Senate ! 

It was once supposed that, in the discharge of our high consti- 
tutional duties, as advisers of the President, we were free agents, 
having the right to form and express opinions for ourselves. 
In this belief, we some time since placed upon our own records, as a 
guide to our own conduct, an opinion in relation to appointments. 
We had the temerity to say, that, in our judgment, it is inexpe- 
dient that persons living in one State, should be appointed to 
offices in another, without manifest necessity ; and thereupon the 
President comes here, by his message, and tells us, that -sve have 
no right to express such an opinion ; that it is unconstitutional ! 
He lectures the Senate upon its rights and duties, declaring 
that, until they shall reverse their judgment, he will make no 
more nominations to certain offices. The resolution was 
rescinded by the vote of seventeen members, late at night, when 
twenty-six only were present. 

But the action of the Senate is not now in accordance with 
Presidential Avill ; and for this, it is announced, in the official 
organ, that it is committing sriciDE. AVe see and feel the fear- 
ful array that is attempting to accomplish the predicted 
destruction. The storm of calumny and violence is raging upon us, 
because, true to the purpose of our being, we have dared to 
resist Executive encroachment. We may be prostrated ; but if Ave 
are, the best hopes of the human race will be extinguished. 
Liberty, herself, Avill perish in the iiill. Her last shriek will 
echo from the ruins of the Senate. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 347 

But we are told, and it is constantly reiterated in our ears, that, 
in all these assumptions and claims of prerogative, the President is 
sustained by the people. 

It is time that we came to an understanding — a full under- 
standing — upon this important matter. The people are the 
fountain of all power ; they are politically otnnijjotcjit. They can 
make and unmake, constitutions at pleasure. But they cannot 
have mojxd iyicompatihiUties. Omnipotent as they are, they can- 
not have an elective monarchy, and a co7istitiitlonal reimhlic at the 
same time. Let it then be distinctly understood, that these two 
tremendous powers, the Executive, and the people, cannot meet, 
and in their coming together, crush the Legislature, the Judiciary, 
and the Senate between them, and still leave a constitutional 
republic. It was such a meeting that crushed the Senate, and 
the liberties of ancient Rome, and placed the blood-stained 
Caesar upon the throne. It was such a meeting that extinguished 
the legislative assembly, and annihilated the hopes of republican 
France, and elevated Bonaparte to imperial power. We have 
been admonished, warned, if not threatened here, in this debate, 
that, if we bow not to Executive will, we shall be driven from this 
hall by ruffian force, as Cromwell expelled the Rump Parliament ! 
Let us, then — let the people then understand the catastrophe, 
that is predicted. If it be their will to prostrate the constitution 
of their country, they can do it. But, sir, it is not their deliberate 
will — no, no, no. 

The people love their constitution, their liberties, and them- 
selves. They are always politically honest, for political honesty 
desires the greatest good of the greatest number ; they are that 
greatest number, and must desire their own greatest good. But 
they are not infallible. I should be false to all history, false to 
human nature, fiilse to holy writ, if I could so flatter the people 
as to tell them that they are exempt from that great besetting sin, 
a proneness to idolatry. It is of the nature of man to worship 
the work of his own hands, to bow down to idols which they 
have set up. Feeble, fallible mortals, like themselves, are canon- 
ized and deified. And oftentimes a military chieftain, having 
wrought real or fancied deliverance by successful battles — fervent 
gratitude, unbounded admiration, the best feelings of our nature, 
rush towards him ; the excited imagination invests him with a 
glorious halo, circling around him all the splendid perfections and 



348 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

dazzling attributes of heroes and patriots ; and then the strongest 
facts, the clearest evidence, and the most cogent reasoning, -which 
expose his errors or ambition, excite only indignation and resent- 
ment towards their authors, as impious and sacrilegious revilcrs of 
the idol of their hearts. In the paroxysms of their devotion, 
they are ready at his shrine to sacrifice their rights, their liberties, 
their children, and themselves. 

Such are the delusions ■which have placed the iron sceptre in 
the hands of the Caesars and Bonapartes of past ages, and over- 
whelmed or jeopardized all the free governments of the earth. 

So strong is this proclivity of our species, that, if there were to 
be a Government sent directly from Heaven, we may reverently 
fear that it would endanger its continuance. If there were to be, 
did I say ? There has been : the theocracy of the Jews, whose 
histoiy presents the most melancholy examples of this deadly sin. 
And is there not in this, our American Israel, which has been 
delivered from the house of bondage, guided through the wilder- 
ness, and is now in the land of promise — an Idol Chief, to whom 
our incense and our homage is demanded ? Thank Heaven, there 
is a remnant still unsubdued and undismayed ; there are those, 
even here, who have not bowed, and will not bow, the knee to 
Baal. 

Sir, this delusion will vanish ; the morning will dawn upon us ; 
the people, the honest, the pure-minded people, will awake — 
awake as from a dream — and look back upon these scenes as on 
the troubled visions of the night. 

The delusion will be dissipated. But are not the priests of 
party intent, while its influence may yet prevail, \ipon settling 
the succession and securing the continuance of the dynasty ? And 
is it not apparent, that this is to be accomplished by means of 
an anny, not of soldiers with swords and bayonets, but of parti- 
sans — organized, officered, and disciplined ; with its legions and 
cohorts ; with its captains of hundreds, and captains of fifties ; its 
drill sergeants, and file leaders ; where no private judgments, 
no individuality, is tolerated, but all arc to move en masse, to 
march, and countermarch, to wheel and change front at the word 
of command ; where there is but one principle of action, one all- 
pervading sentiment — devotion to the chief'/ 

This army must be subsisted — must be sustained, either by 
present pay or hopes of future spoils. The people's treasury. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 349 

that great trust-fund collected from all, to be dispensed for the 
benefit of all, is to be seized upon ; and all the streams issuing from 
it in salaries, contracts, jobs, and agencies, are to be diverted to 
the use of the party. Public offices, instituted for the benefit of 
all, are declared to be legitimate spoils. In appointing the thou- 
sands of officers, whose names are in this book,* scattered through- 
out the country, drawing millions annually from the pockets of 
the people, what is the test and criterion of merit ? Not what he 
has done for the country ; but what he has done for me : Not, 
will he be useful to the imhlic ? but will he be useful to %is ? 
Not, will he be faithful to the constitution ? but will he be faithful 
to the yartij 1 

Since the political victory of 1828, the vultures have been 
screaming over the battle-field, and " even the cries of the widows 
and the orphan," could not scare them from their prey. A spirit 
of proscription, for opinion's sake, scarcely paralleled in the 
annals of free Governments, has swept in terror over the land, 
prostrating the purest, and the best, breaking down the inde- 
jDcndent, bending the feeble, and leaving the timid, like tremb- 
ling slaves, to eat their bread in fear. Veteran soldiers of the 
revolution have been sacrificed for daring to exercise the freedom 
for which they fought ! Officers of the late war, republicans of 
'98, patriots at all times, have been punished for daring, in a 
republican country, to breathe the language of freemen ! ' 

Where is Melville, the last of that gallant band, who, with 
the courage of Daniel of old, dared first to beard the British lion ? 
That band who entered the British ships in the harbor of Boston, 
and cast the obnoxious tea upon the waters ? — Melville — who 
served in the army of the revolution, and, through all periods, 
was a pure patriot, and undeviating republican ? He held an 
humble office, conferred upon him by Washington, which, in a 
green old age, he was daily discharging with delight to himself, 
and to the gratification of others ; which he cherished, which was 
dear to his heart, as the pledge of his country's gratitude ; it 
was rudely wrested from him ; he was thrust from the public 
service to make place for a partisan successor! — Where is Harri- 
son — the republican soldier of Tippecanoe? Cook — the friend 
and compatriot of Washington ? Gerry — the son of that early 
and revered patriot of the revolution, who once, as the second 

*The Blue Book. 



350 REMOVAL OF THE DErOSITS. 

officer in the Government, filled the chair which you now occupy, 
and whose dust reposes in the cemetery within our view ? When 
that fervent friend of liberty, at the formation of the constitution, 
and in the debate of '89, raised his prophetic warnings, and sol- 
emn protestations against the enlargement of Executive power, 
and especially this control over public officers — little — little could 
he have imagined that Itis oion loidowcdiclfeandfathcrles!^ children, 
were so soon to feel its withering grasp. His death left his 
family pennyless. An office in the customs was bestowed upon 
the son by President ^Monroe, with the tacit understanding that 
the income should be devoted to the support of his mother and 
sisters. It was performed M'ith scrupulous fidelity, until he was 
no longer permitted to continue that sacred office of filial and 
fraternal ministration. He was superseded by an accepted 
partisan ! 

Where is Fillebrown, also the son of a soldier of the revo- 
lution, a fearless and undeviating republican, whose only offence 
was, that, in 1824, and 1828, being an elector of President and "S'ice 
President, he did not give his vote for the present incumbent ? 
The sin of the father was visited upon the son, who held a sub- 
ordinate office here, upon which his family depended for 
subsistence, and whose duties he had discharged with devoted 
ability. He was ignominiously driven from it, branded with the 
foul charge of peculation ; and, that his detection might be 
trumpeted as one of the achievements of reform, was daily held on 
high to the scorn and detestation of the public, pierced with ten 
thousand arrows of calumny. Humble and powerless, he had no 
refuge but a jury of his country. To that tribunal he appealed, 
and their verdict not only repelled the foul aspersions upon his 
name, but declared that the Government actually owed him some 
hundreds of dollars at the moment of his removal. 

The gentleman from South Carolina (]Mr. Preston) asked why 
did not the President go to a jury against the liank ? Send tbe 
President to the tribunals ! He went there with Fillebrown, and 
again in the case of Nourse, again to find his charge of peculation 
repelled, and stamped with reprobation, as unfounded and unjust. 
Go to the tribunals with the recollection of the case of "Watkins, 
still luiefraced ! AV^itkins, who, having expiated his offences, 
great as they were, by suffering the sentence of the law, as a 
criminal, mms subsequently confined in close jail for years, merely 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 351 

for debt due to tlie Government ; during -which time, a youthful 
son, in holy ministrations to the loneliness of the father, in the 
gloom and vapors of a prison, withered, sunk, and died ; but no 
beam of hope radiated from Executive mercy ! He remained 
incarcerated until the highest judicial tribunal pronounced the 
imprisonment illegal. The captive was set free ; but, ere he had 
passed yonder gates, before he had reached the expecting arms of 
his trembling wife, he was again seized, and, by an illegal process 
from unsated power, reconsigned to the same prison ! — from 
which he was again delivered by a judicial tribunal. And 
Randolph, too, still more recently arrested and consigned to 
prison by an illegal Executive warrant, was liberated by the 
judiciary, set free by the concurring decisions of a Barbour and a 
Marshall — Marshall — a name which will be venerated and 
admired so long as there shall be a votary of liberty and intellect 
upon earth. And, with this new decree still tingling in his ears, 
ask the President to go to the tribunals against the Bank ! No — 
no. He must have a shorter and a surer road to his object. 

Pardon me this unexpected digression. I recur to the subject 
of removals. I ask the Senate to recollect how this power has 
grown up. Its history is one of the most instructive lessons of the 
progress of prerogative. It is nowhere found among the express 
grants of the constitution ; and, when that instrument was pro- 
posed to the people, they were told, ex cathedra, by the highest 
authority — the numbers of the Federalist — that it would not be 
possessed by the President alone ; that, as appointments could be 
made only with the approbation of the Senate, the sa7ne concur- 
rence would be necessary to effect a removal. The constitution 
was thereupon adopted. In the Congress first held under it, came 
on the celebrated debate- of 1789, in which, by the aid of implica- 
tion, it was decided, by the casting vote of the elder Adams, then 
Vice President of the United States, that the power belonged to 
the President alone. This claim was, at one time, feebly attempted 
to be sustained as belonging necessarily to the Chief Executive ; 
but the doctrine, now so prevalent, that we are to go abroad to 
foreign writers for definitions of Executive power, and then con- 
fer all upon the First Magistrate that is not expressly forbidden 
him, had not then found favor. It was then known that the 
Executive power, mentioned in the constitution, was that which is 
therein defined and conferred. And the only clause from which 



352 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

it was at last contended that such a right of removal could be 
extracted, was that which requires the President '•' to see the laws 
faithfullij executed ; " and, for that end, and that alone, was it con- 
tended that it could ever be legitimately exercised. 

That debate should be I'ead and pondered well by every lover 
of freedom. The warning voices of Gerry, White, and Sherman, 
were raised in vain. They declared, to use the language of the 
American Tacitus, that, " in the power over all the Executive 
offices, proposed to be conferred on the President, the most alarm- 
ing dangers to liberty were perceived. It was in the nature of 
monarchical prerogative, and would convert them into the mere 
tools and creatures of his will. A dependence so servile on one 
individual, Mould deter men of high and honorable minds from 
engaging in the public service ; and if, contrary to expectation, 
such men should be brought into office, they would be reduced to 
the necessity of sacrificing every principle of independence to the 
will of the Chief Magistrate, or of exposing themselves to the 
disgrace of being removed from office." 

On the other side were Ames and Sedgwick, Yining and Mad- 
ison, by whom, in the language of the same high authority, " the 
danger that a President could ever be found who Avould remove 
good men from office, was treated as imaginary." Yes, sir, the 
predictions that this prerogative would ever be exerted for party 
purposes, to gratify individual feelings or personal views, were 
treated as the chimeras of a gloomy imagination. Mr. ^Iadison, 
the amiable, unsuspecting Madison, declared " that the wanton 
removal of meritorious officers, (by the President,) would subject 
him to impeachment." "Such abuse of power exceeds inn <^'>^^<^(^p- 
tion." » * * «< ^[y imagination cannot extend to it on any 
rational principle ; " and Mr. Yining declared that, if the Presi- 
dent remove a valuable officer, it would be an (ict of tijranuij. 

And has it not come upon us ? Are not the dark chimeras of 
1789 the dread realities of 1833 ? Are they not here among us, 
around us, and upon us, seen and heard and felt in terror and 
oppression ? The gentleman from (ieorgia (Mr. Forsyth) told us 
not to be moved by apprehensions now, because those who were 
alarmed at Executive prerogative, in the early days of the republic, 
subse([uently acknowledged that their fears had not been verified. 
But if those great and good men, who now sleep with their fathers, 
had survived to the present day, could they now make the same 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 353 

admission ? Would they not declare that the shadows of their 
most gloomy predictions and darkest forebodings were closing 
around us in the process of actual realization ? 

In 1789, this power of removal was, by constructive implica- 
tion, conceded to the President. How has it been exercised ? 
For the whole period of forty years, which preceded this adminis- 
tration, the removal of civil officers, so far as can be ascertained by 
the public records, amounted to seventy-three only — less than an 
average of two per annum. During the twelve years of the 
administration of Washington and the first of Adams's, there were 
twenty-two removals — all, no doubt, with exclusive reference to 
the faithful execution of the law. 

INIr. Jefferson's administration, so far from furnishing an exam- 
ple under which the present can find refuge, is, in truth, in con- 
trast and condemnation of it. Upon his accession, he found all 
the public offices, almost without exception, in possession of his 
political opponents. Some of them, especially marshals and 
attorneys, had rendered themselves odious to the people, by 
uncalled-for zeal in enforcing the obnoxious sedition law. Oth- 
ers, as in the case to which the celebrated New Haven letter 
refers, had been commissioned in the last moments of his prede- 
cessor, thus depriving him of the appointment. The present 
incumbent found nearly all the public offices in the hands of his 
friends. Some became so, doubtless, from principle ; others, 
from calculating selfishness. Secure in their places from the 
forbearance and uprightness of Mr. Adams, it was politic to pro- 
pitiate his opponent by early adhesions. Such men have continued 
to be safe. There had been no enforcement of odious laws ; and, 
instead of appointments, on the eve of his accession, in anticipa- 
tion of his rights, the Executive action had been, for months 
preceding, suspended ; and, upon the day of his inauguration, 
there were more offices vacant, the filling of which had been 
postponed for the purpose of conferring patronage on him, than 
the whole number of removals by Mr. Jeflferson in his eight 
years. What was that whole number, as exhibited by the records ? 
Thirty-six only, — less than five per annum. Some for the causes 
already specified, others, for knoAvn incompetency or misconduct. 
Mr. Madison, in eight years, removed five civil officers ; Mr. 
Monroe, ni?ic ; and Mr. Adams — the reviled John Quincy Adams 
— ^in four years, made two removals ; making the whole number 
23 



354 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

of removals of civil oificers, from the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion to the 9th of March, 1829, but seven lij-tliree. And, within 
ont year next following, being the first of this administration, 
there were, at least, one hundred and ninety-six, if not more than 
two hundred expulsions — double, nearly three times as many, as 
during the whole forty years of all his predecessors ! And this, 
too, exclusive oi Jour hundred and ninety removals of postmasters, 
to which are to be added hundreds of inspectors, clerks, deputy 
collectors, deputy marshals, secretaries, and other subordinates, 
swelling the number, doubtless, from fifteen hundred to two thou- 
sand in a single year ! Nor did the work of proscription stop 
there. It went on, ever demanding new victims, and is, even 
now, unsated and unstayed. 

Tliis is the promised reform, and thus has the partisan army 
been recruited, subsisted, and sustained. 

There was yet another promise — Retrenchment. Retrench- 
ment was the war cry. The extravagance, nay, the abandoned 
profligacy of Mr. Adams's administration could no longer be 
endured ; and the people were invoked to rise in their majesty to 
put it down, and transfer their treasure to other hands to save 
themselves from its corruption and enormous expenditures. It 
was done. And what is the result ? Comiiare the expenditures 
in the two last years of the former and present administrations, 
exclusive of payments to the public debt. 

A. D. 

rr-?»-R Aj \ 1827, $13,002,816 

O- By Adams, j ^j^^g| 12,053,090 

fv-. -p , , (1832, 10,510,389 

^ By Jackson, j ^^33^ 22,080,004 

Making a difference of nearly thirteen inillions in the aggregate 
of the respective terms of two years. In addition to M'hich, it is 
to be borne in mind, that, during the former, the system of inter- 
nal improvements for the public good, consumed large sums, from 
which the present administration has exempted itself by the use 
of the veto. If this be deducted, the expenditure, exclusive of 
the public debt, during the last year of General Jackson's adminis- 
tration, will have been about double that of the last yeai" of Mr. 
Adams's — the cxtraviigant, profligate, and prostrated administration 
of Mr. Adams. And, in addition to all this, the Post Office 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 355 

Department, which was left, by the able and virtuous McLean, in 
vigorous strength and credit, is now feeble, insolvent, and 
deranged ; is largely in arrears to contractors ; has borrowed four 
hundred thousand dollars ; and is presumed to owe at least a 

MILLION ! 

We are told that money is the dynasty of modern States. 
Money will obtain partisans, and partisans will obtain money. 
Has not the progress of both kept even pace ? The army of par- 
tisans msut be recruited and sustained ; new hopes inspired ; 
new stimulants applied. Two great resources — the public lands 
and the banking capital — still remain ; the former peculiarly 
convenient for certain western and interior States ; the latter, for a 
still greater number of the middle, northern, and Atlantic. And 
the South — the south must be content with the idol which they 
have set up, or live upon abstractions — the past visions of theoret- 
ical reform and retrenchment, or new expositions of proclamations^ 
The land bill would have disposed of the proceeds of our immense 
and magnificent national domain, by a distribution so just and 
equitable, that it could never have been disturbed ; and thus, like 
the tariff by the compromise bill, it would have been taken from 
the capital of speculating politicians ; it could no longer have been, 
made an element in political combinations. 

The land bill was vetoed as unconstitutional, with an Executive 
recommendation that the price should be immediately reduced, 
and the whole eventually given to the States where they lie. It 
was unconstitutional for Congress to divide them among all, but 
perfectly constitutional, under Executive lead, to bestow them 
upon a part ! It was vetoed, because, as the message informed 
us, the lands were a common fund, to be disposed of for the ben- 
efit of all the States ; and yet the President would devise means 
of making them gratuitous donations- to a few only. The old 
States, by whose blood and treasure they were acquired, could not 
even participate in the distribution ; but the new, which had no 
existence at the time of their acquisition, might swallow up the 
whole with Executive approbation ! 

The Banking Capital. — Before proceeding to more recent 
events, let us pause upon a few reminiscences. When this 
administration came into power, it was announced that it would 
** reward its friends and punish its enemies," — a system of reform 
— ^that is, of coercion or expulsion, would be vigorously enforced. 



356 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

The several Executive Departments were at once oiganized 
upon this system. The Post Office alone stood aloof — John 
McLean was at its head. He would not become the instrument 
of proscription. He was too strong to be broken down, and 
therefore, against his wishes, was reluctantly transferred to the 
elevated station which he now so honorably sustains. A succes- 
sor was found who had no such scruples, whose fraternization was 
complete ; and the whole Department was at once brought to act 
efficiently in the harsh and discordant system. 

The I3ank of the United States presented the next obstacle. 
The President and a majority of the Directors were not removable 
at the pleasure of the Chief Magistrate ; but it was hoped that 
the influence of the Treasury would be sufficient to mould them 
to its purposes. The attempt was first made through the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury to remove the President of a remote branch, 
the easternmost, save one, because of his political opinions and 
associations. Mr. Biddle did not acquiesce. He informed the 
Secretary that the Bank had never interfered with j)olitics ; that it 
was the friend of all administrations ; the iiolitical instrnment of 
none. The attempt was baffled. And in the next annual message 
of the Chief Magistrate, the Bank itself was for the first time 
denounced, and a new one, founded iqwn the revcmics of the Gov- 
ernment — which means a Treasury Bank — under the control of 
that Department, was recommended. This new project was une- 
quivocally condemned by the Committee of Ways and ]Means, in 
an able and elaborate report, and found no favor in either House 
of Congress. Its adoption by the Legislature was therefore hope- 
less. The object, however, was not abandoned by the Executive, 
but a new mode was souglit for its accomplishment, by the transfer 
of the deposits — in other words, the removal of the Bank from 
its fiscal agency, and the appointment of others under the control 
of the Treasury. But the only ground \ipon which it was even 
then suggested, that such removal could be justified, was the 
insccuritij of the public moneys. The President, therefore, in a 
message to Congress, assailed the Bank as unsafe — nnsafc, repeats 
the Secretary of the Treasury — unsafe, re-echoed a distinguished 
member in the House — unsafe, thundered another, on the floor of 
the Senate. But members could not be made to believe what was 
palpably unfounded; and the resolution of insecurity was rejected 
in the House by a vote of one hundred and nine to forty-six. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 357 

The purpose of the Execvitive remained unchanged. The 
action of Congress, which seems before to have been necessary, 
could then be dispensed with. Nay, the ojainion of the House, 
which had been courted, was instantly contemned. The vote 
passed on Saturday, and, on the Monday following, the ojjicial 
organ assailed it with the accusation of being under the influ- 
ence of the Bank, and endeavoring to " control the appropriate 
action of the Treasury Department." 

Congress being thus refractory, the object must be accom- 
plished by the President alone. " I take the kesponsibility," 
followed. 

Mr. McLane could see no justifiable grounds. He was trans- 
ferred to another Department. His successor was equally unbe- 
lieving and more uncompromising ; he was struck down, and the 
Executive power strode over him to the Treasury. It was accom- 
plished ! A new fiscal agency was established, by league banks, 
under the control of the Treasury. The system of reform ivas 
complete. It was done in contempt of Congress, sixty days only 
before its annual meeting. The President, with military boldness, 
throws himself in advance J and his friends now mock us with 
declarations that the Legislature may act upon the subject, when 
it is known that his tremendous veto stands ready to paralyze 
every effort for restoration. It was accomplished by the power 
of removal, conferred, by implication, for the sole purpose of 
seeing the laws faithfully executed. This was the extent even 
of the federal doctrine in 1789. What law was to be executed 
requiring the expulsion of Mr. Duane ? None — none ! The law 
left it to his fiscal discretion, and when his judgment was exer- 
cised, the law was executed. But we are told that Congress 
cannot, by law, vest a discretion which the President may not 
control. That he has a right, as the Senator from Georgia says, 
to go into the Auditor's or Comptroller's apartment, and say. 
Allow this account and reject that, upon pain of instant dismission ; 
and, of consequence, may go to the commisioners now sitting under 
the French treaty, order them to admit one claim, or reject 
another ; and, if they hesitate, expel them, and appoint subservient 
tools in their stead ! All, all, over whom the removing preroga- 
tive can be stretched, are merged in a single Executive will. 
When the judges of England held their offices at the pleasure of 
the King, he was not permitted, as is well known, to go to the 



358 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

bench and dictate their decisions. Can a doctrine too (ir/jitranj 
for the British monarchij take root in the soil, and flourish in the 
air, of this free rcpuhlic ? 

The Senator from Georgia informed us that, in an opinion 
deUvered by the Chief Justice of the United States, it -svas dechired 
that the charter of the Bank had been violated. But he could 
not recollect where it was to be found. No wonder — 

" For it requireth optics keen, 
To see what is not to bo seen ;" 

and it must be a good memory that recollects a fact that never 
existed. If the gentleman had reference to the dissentient opinion 
of the Chief Justice in the case of the Bank vs. Dandridge, he 
will find no such declaration. 

But to return. When that important fiscal discretion was 
vested in the Sco-etarij, was any other officer in contemplation 
than one of some permanency, and of financial experience and 
ability, who had passed the ordeal rf the Senate? Was it ever 
imagined that it was to be exercised by a three days' Secretary, a 
mere locum tenens, brought in during the recess of the Senate, by 
setting aside and trampling down his more experienced predeces- 
sors ? Had they ever beheld the pageant of flitting Secretaries 
passing before their eyes like the phantasmagoria of a magic lan- 
tern ? Would Congress, would this body, ever have conferred 
this power upon any officer not expected to be appointed with the 
concurrence of the Senate ? Has there ever been a Secietary who 
has passed the Senate that would have given the order for the 
removal ? Has there ever been a time when any one could have 
been confirmed, if it were known that he would give such an 
order ? Yet the people were told, and verily believed, when they 
adopted this constitution, the concurrence of the Senate in 
appointments was to be a safe iiractical barrier against the Avill of 
a single Executive ; that accidental vacancies only could be filled 
in the recess, and that temporarily only, for purposes too immi- 
nent to bear delay. 

As the order was in form, that of the Secretary, he must give 
his reasons upon compulsion ; and that, too, where reasons were 
not "as plenty as blackberries."" The first financial officer 
removed the great financial agent of the Government, and 
appointed another in his stead, and yet his reasons are not finan- 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 359 

cial ! As a Jiscal measure, it seems to be conceded to be utterly, 
indefensible. It depresses the stock of a bank in which we own 
$7,000,000, to elevate that of which we own nothing. It 
removes our money from a bank which paid us one-fifth of the 
interest received upon it, to those who pay us nothing — from one 
where it was unquestionably safe, to those of at least, doubtful 
security — from where it was ready at any instant for our use, to 
those who require undefined reasonable notice — from one bound 
by law, to those only under Executive contract of doubtful valid- 
ity. It is, in effect, a run upon our own Treasury ; and changes 
a currency more sound and vmiform than ever before existed in a 
country of equal extent, to one unsound, fluctuating, and 
deranged, producing general distress and dismay. 

But it is contended that an arbitrary and unlimited discretion 
was vested in the Secretary. Precedents have been cited. That 
of Mr. Crawford has already been commented upon by those who 
have preceded me. Some others, new and extraordinary, have 
been presented by the Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Forsyth.) The 
first is a resolution offered in the House of Representatives, in 
1817, never acted upon, and carrying with it no other authority 
than the unsupported opinion of the mover, which was — the 
honorable gentleman himself. 

What was the resolution ? That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be directed to withdraw the deposits, — directed, not by the Pres- 
ident, but by Congress. How this tends to show unlimited power 
in the Secretary, to the exclusion of Congress, is not easily per- 
ceived. The second was a resolution offered in the House, by Mr. 
Spencer, of New York, but never acted upon. By this, too, the 
Secretary was ordered to withdraw the deposits upon certain con- 
ditions or contingencies. And this, a mere proposition to give a 
peremptory order by a superior, is cited to maintain the claim of 
the subordinate Secretary to unlimited and exclusive power. 

[Mr. Forsyth explained. He had not adduced these precedents 
to show that Congress had no power, but that the Secretary had. 
He thought that Congress also possessed the power of removal, 
and, so far, differed from the Secretary. He added, that he then 
held in his hand the opinion of the Chief Justice, to which he had 
referred, which he had stated to be a dissentient opinion, and in 
which he understood the Chief Justice to say that the charter had 
been violated. Mr. Sprague resumed.] 



360 IlEMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

That is the gentleman's inference. It is not so expressed, and, 
as I think, is not justly inferred. And, if it "were, a dissentient 
opinion would not be a very good index of the views of the tribu- 
nal. 

I recur to the resolutions. If they Avere not cited to cover the 
doctrine of the Secretary, they are of no significance in this dis- 
cussion. But, taking the gentleman's explanation, how does an 
order by Congress to an executive officer to perform a specified 
service prove, or tend to prove, that such officer would have author- 
ity without such order ? Is not the more reasonable inference the 
exact contrary ? Do we not, almost every day, command, by law 
or resolution, the performance of acts m Inch would otherwise be 
wholly unauthorized and illegal ? 

The third was that Mhich the Senator introduced, Avitli such 
peculiar emphasis ; it is an extract from Mr. McDuffie's Report, 
in 1830, in which he says that the Secretary of the Treasury, with 
the sanction of Congress, has the power of removing the deposits 
for various reasons. "With the sanction of Congress ! And yet 
it is now contended that no such sanction is necessary ; that the 
Secretary's power is sole and exclusive, absolute and uncontrollable. 

I pass briefly to the reasons which the Secretary has assigned, 
not intending to repeat remarks which may have already been 
presented by others. That which is put forward as the first, 
and seems to be most relied upon is, that the Bank charter will 
expire in March, 1836 ; it should have been added, having two 
years thereafter to wir.d up its concerns. This, the Secretary 
declares, would of itself be abundant cause even for an earlier 
removal. Let us consider of this for a moment. Congress cre- 
ates a fiscal agent, providing for its continuance until 1836 ; and 
that of itself, it is said, constitutes a reason for dismissing it in 
1833 ! I say, created a fiscal agent. That was the only end and 
object. There was no power to grant the charter for any other 
purpose. None was even pretended. It was only as a means 
necessary and convenient to the Government to carry into eft'ect 
the express powers of raising and disbursing revenue, and regu- 
lating the currency. This agency was its essence, its soul, its 
animating principle, without which it could have neither life nor 
being. All its faculties were imparted as subsidiary only to tliis 
— as the mere machinery necessary to this sole purpose of its cre- 
ation. Could Congress then — could the National Legislature — 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 361 

have provided that the agency should cease in 1833, and yet the 
Bank continue, for all other purposes, for years afterwards ? Could 
they thus continue or establish it, for an indefinite term of years, as 
a mere commercial bank ? The boldest advocates of latitudina- 
rian constructions never advanced such an extravagant claim of 
power. And yet the Secretary of the Treasury assumes, under a 
power delegated by Congress, to effect that which Congress itself 
had no power to accomplish or authorize to be done, — to divorce 
the bank from the Government ; to dismiss it from its agency, and 
yet continue its • being for all other purposes ; to establish a mere 
commercial bank. 

In support of this first proposition, the Secretary assigns two 
subordinate reasons by way of argument. First, that a sudden 
removal would produce great public mischief, and it ought not to 
be left, therefore, till near the termination of the charter. It is 
to be recollected that the length of time contemplated by Congress 
for that operation was two years, that being the period expressly 
prescribed for closing its business after the expiration of the charter. 
The Secretary instantly intercepts all future deposits, threatens 
the immediate withdrawal of the whole, and actually takes from 
the vaults all, excepting a small fraction, within the short period 
of four months ; and yet tells us that two years, six times as long, 
would be too short, and assigns that as a reason for his speedy 
action ! 

The second subordinate proposition is, that, when the charter 
shall be near its close, the Bank must be curtailing its discounts, 
and it would be distressing to call at such a time for the public 
moneys ; and yet, during the months of August, September, and 
October, the Bank was rapidly curtailing its loans, and this was 
known to the Secretary, at the moment he gave his sudden order. 
He tells us so himself, and that it stimulated him to instant action ; 
that he could not even wait till the meeting of Congress ! 

The next general reason is, that the " public directors " have 
not been placed upon the committees, and called into the active 
management of business so much as they ought. Without con- 
ceding the fact, (which has been discussed by others,) what is the 
remedy ? The substitution of banks in which we have no " pub- 
lic directors ! " 

Next comes the case of the French bill. The Secretary of the 
Treasury drew on the Government of France for about nine hun- 



362 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

dred thousand dollars. The bank offered to collect it as agent. 
This was declined. The Secretary insisted upon selling the bill. 
The Bank consented, became the purchaser, and paid for it to the 
Government. Upon its transmission to France it was protested, 
taken up for the honor of the purchaser, and, upon its return, the 
Bank aslcil tlie Government to pay the amount of the bill, and 
the usual damages in cases of protest ; the same which the Gov- 
ernment has itself invariably claimed of individuals, and actually 
received of some who were stockholders in the Bank. The dam- 
ages had become a part of the debt, as much so a« the principal ; 
they were the property of the stockholders ; the directors had no 
right to relinquish or give them away ; and yet, because they 
merely and simply asked for payment, it is an offence — a crime — 
to be visited with this enormous punishment. What if the Bank 
had offered to relinquish this part of the debt, should we not then 
have heard that it was attempting to purchase the favor of the 
Secretary ; to bribe him by one hundred and fifty thousand dol- 
lars of the money of the stockholders ? Would it not have been 
imputed as a crime of much deeper dye ? But what is the rem- 
edy ? Substitute other banks, who need all their resources so 
much for their own exigencies that they will never be able to 
accommodate the Government by purchasing so large a bill ; or, 
if they should, may, in perfect consistency with their contracts, 
and would be bound in duty to make the same claim for dam- 
ages. 

The last general reason assigned is, that the Bank has interfered 
in politics — in iiolitics ! That is now the accusation ; Avhcn its 
primary offence, its highest crime, in truth, is, that it iconhJ not 
interfere in politics ; it could not be made a political instrument ; 
it would not come into the system of kei-orm. Thence its 
destruction was decreed. Presidential denunciation followed — was 
reiterated ; and, because it has dared, in a free country, to use a 
free press in self-defence ; because, seeing the dagger aimed at its 
life, it has dared to raise a hand to turn aside the blow, the Bresi- 
dent exclaims — " It is assailing the Government ; it is dangerous 
to the Government ; it will overthrow the Goveknment. Louis of 
France said, " I am the State." We have arrived at that period, 
when one man may say, "T am the Government." 

The fiscal agent appointed by Congress, has interfered in ])oli- 
tics ; and, what is the remedy ? Send out the Fourth Auditor to 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 363 

select others to be under the sole control of the officers of the 
Treasury ; whose very existence is political ; who live, and move, 
and have their being in politics ! Nay, when it is avowed by 
the Fourth Auditor himself, that political considerations enter 
into these new selections ! Does he not say to his correspondent, 
that, " on account of your devotion to the cause I had so much at 

heart, I was anxious that the bank should be employed by 

the Treasury Department ? " Has not the President of one of the 
affiliated banks been already in the arena? And now this 
removal of the public moneys — a movement, political in its con- 
ception and consummation, not merely tinctured, but saturated 
with politics — is to be justified on the ground that the Bank had 
become political ! 

The Secretary, near the close of his report, very justly remarks, 
that it is a fundamental principle, that power ought not to accumu- 
late in the hands of the same person. Do we not see this funda- 
mental principle now practically subverted ? Is not the distribution, 
the balance of the powers of this Government, destroyed ? Are 
they not all rushing to one great vortex, converging to 07ie focus, 
all — all melting down in the burning centre of a single execu- 
tive? 

I may be deemed an alarmist. There is cause for alarm. 
When ONE man, encroaching upon Congress, the Senate, and the 
Judiciary, arrests and rolls back the course of legislation — inter- 
prets laws, treaties, and constitutions — assumes the sole power of 
appointment — holding, at the same time, absolute control over the 
army, the navy, the post-office, an affiliated press, and the whole 
swarm of Executive officers — and now, superadded to all, this tre- 
mendous money power, the fiscal agency engrafted upon banking 
capital — can liberty be safe ? Safe — when a hoa constrictor is 
closing around her, his crawling and crushing folds ! 

There is cause for alarm. If this appalling accumulation of 
power may be acquired in the time of profound peace, what may 
not be accomplished in the exigencies of war — war, which the 
Executive Chief can at any moment create ? He has but to order 
the army across the lines to take possession of a foreign territory ; 
or the commander of a single ship, to insult a foreign flag ; or 
resort to any of the well known expedients of past ages, to pro- 
voke hostilities, and it is done. Congress, indeed, may not 
declare it — but other nations will make war upon us, and no 



36-1 REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 

treaty can be formed but by the President ; and if he shall grasp 
further power to meet the emergencies which he himself has 
created, Avill you impeach him ? Impeach your chief, flagrante 
hello, when a strong Executive may be essential to self-preserva- 
tion? 

I confess I do feel alarmed. And, if my strength bore any 
proportion to the depth and sincerity of my convictions, I would 
raise my voice till it passed every hill, filled every valley, and, 
was echoed back from every cottage on our remotest borders. I 
would say to the people, the strong man of the land — awake 
from your false security — sleep no longer in the lap of your 
Delilah ; you will be shorn of your strength, and bound in fetters. 
The progress of Executive power and prerogative must be 
arrested — it must he arrested. And if it be not done now, in this 
generation, by the peaceable means of constitutional resistance, it 
will be hereafter, by the convulsive throes of posterity — con\tjl- 

SIONS WHICH WILL BAPTIZE OUR CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN 
BLOOD ! 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



MAINE MEMORIALS. 



In Senate, February 21, 1834. 

Mr. Sprague presented to the Senate, Memorials from the cities of 
Portland and Bangor, in Maine, complaining of great Public Distress 
consequent upon the Removal of the Deposits, and praying for relief. 
In presenting them, he made a Statement of the Contents of the Memo- 
rials, and the Character and Standing of the Signers. A debate there- 
upon arose, which occupied a considerable part of the morning, and, in 
the course of which, Mr. Sprague several times addressed the Senate in 
answer to different Gentlemen. The following Remarks, in answer to 
Mr. Shepley, were made immediately upon that Gentleman's resuming his 
seat. 

Mr. Sprague observed, that the remarks of his colleague, (Mr. 
Shepley,) as he presumed, were intended to go to their constit- 
uents, who had come before Congress to inform them of the 
causes which had produced the evils they complained of. He 
differed with his colleague as to that cause, and had deemed it 
proper to make known to his constituents, his views and opinions. 
The closing appeal of his colleague was not a little extraordinary. 
He tells our common constituents that they ought to bear the dis- 
tresses under which they are laboring, and meet all the dangers 
which impend, because of an anonymous newspaper communica- 
tion ! He chooses, without evidence, or the shadow of author- 
ity, to make the bank responsible for the outpouiings of an 



368 PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

unknown newspaper scribhlcv, and then cries out against the bank, 
and declares that our oppressed and doomed constituents ought 
patiently to endure all, because of such declarations of the bank. 
That anonymous writer makes predictions as to the course of the 
dii-ectors, and my colleague asks from what authority this lan- 
guage emanated. He, in his turn, asked him the same question. 
Did he know from whence it came ? And, if he did not, with 
what semblance of reason or justice could he make the bank 
responsible for it ? Was it to be endured that, because an unknown 
irresponsible writer in a newspaper chooses to utter sentiments not 
approved by the gentleman, an answer was to be sent home to his 
constituents who had respectfully addressed that body, that they 
had mistaken the cause of their distress ; and that they should 
denounce the bank for the notions of an anonymous writer ; and 
that then these logical assumptions should be very logically fol- 
lowed by the deduction that they are to submit to every evil rather 
than to suffer the dictation of a moneyed institution ? Sir, (said 
Mr. Sprague,) I know my constituents too well to believe that 
they will be willing to receive this as a reply to their memorial, 
or that they Avill take these assumptions for the causes of the dis- 
tress that prevails amongst them. It is in vain to attempt to make 
the bank responsible for the distress prevailing throughout the 
country. Recollect that this suffering is of recent origin ; that, 
although the bank has existed from 1816 until the present time, 
distress was never felt, the cry of distress was never heard, until 
the unhallowed arm of power, in violation of the spirit of the con- 
stitution and the laws, struck the blow that has been felt from one 
end of the Union to the other. And yet, although the blow had 
been struck, we were told that this institution, under which the 
country has arrived at an unexampled state of prosperity — that 
this institution, which was before known and felt only by the 
blessings it had bestowed, and against which not a murmur of 
complaint, not a whisper of dissatisfaction, had come to us from 
any portion of this vast and happy country, is alone responsible 
for all the misery, present and prospective. 

Sir, I deeply sympathize with my suffering constituents. I 
would make any sacrifice to afford them effectual relief. I have 
jeopardized all that was politically dear to me to avert the present 
calamity. Exercising whatever of judgment or prescience I pos- 
sessed, and firmly believing that the war which the I'resident was 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. ' 369 

waging against the bank would, in its progress, carry disas- 
ter, misery, and ruin, to thousands of my constituents, I did, at 
every hazard, and from no earthly motive but a high sense of par- 
amount duty, give my voice and my vote for a re-charter of the 
bank, hoping thereby to terminate the war, and secure the contin- 
ued and permanent prosperity of the country. The Executive 
repelled this measure of prevention ; suppressed the re-charter by 
his veto. He has continued his assaults, even to this last unprece- 
dented stretch of power ; and now, when its disastrous effects are 
felt, when memorial after memorial come before Congress, com- 
plaining of an unexampled state of calamity and dismay, pointing 
out the true cause, and asking for relief, they were to be told that 
it was true, distress existed, but that it was not to be ascribed to 
the action of the Executive, but to the Bank of the United States. 
And how did the gentleman attempt to make this out ? He made 
certain statements. I hope they rest upon some better authority 
than an unknown, anonymous newspaper writer. But take them 
as he presents them. The bank owes about thirty millions, and 
has about ten millions of specie in its vaults, and it is insisted, 
(said Mr. Sprague,) that the bank might well increase its debt 
twenty millions, (although about to wind up,) because, in a 
former opinion of the president of the bank, that, with five mil- 
lions of specie, they could safely owe a debt to a certain extent. 
What ! because when in a time of profound peace with the Gov- 
ernment and all local institutions ; when, having the public depos- 
its and patronage, and the strong arm of the Government pledged 
for its support, and ready in good faith to be stretched out for its 
relief, and in a time of general and unexampled prosperity, the 
bank could safely extend its debt, it can, now that it has felt the 
blow aimed at its life, intended to prostrate it at the feet of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, extend its debt to the amount of twenty 
millions more ! Now that the strong arm of the Government has 
not only been withdrawn from its support, but raised against it, in 
deadly hostility, and the whole host of affiliated banks also in 
array to cripple and crush it ; after having been told, by the 
Fourth Auditor, the authorized agent of the Executive, that, in 
forty days, it could be laid low ; that it was a feeble and defence- 
less reptile under the foot of the Secretary, is it to exj)and, and 
expose itself, as in time of profound peace and universal confi- 

24 



370 • PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

dence ? What ! when the tempest howls, and the whirlwind is 
raging, spread all sail, as in the mildest summer breeze ? 

]\Iy colleague tells us that the bank can calculate the average 
amount of its deposits, and ought to keep up its discounts 
upon them What ! when the Government, the greatest of all 
depositors, has withdrawn its funds, when the President had 
declared the bank unsafe, when the Secretary had doubted its 
solvency, when friends of the administration, in both branches, 
have declared that it was insolvent, and could not pay its deposi- 
tors — after all this, we are to be told — the suffering peoj)le are to 
be told, that the bank ought to discount as liberally, in this time 
of general danger and distrust, as it ever could under any circum- 
stances, upon the fluth of its i3rivate deposits ! 

Sir, if President Biddle had been so blind or infatuated as to 
listen to such advice, there is no doubt but the bank would have 
been insolvent long before this time. The predictions would 
have been verified. Do we not know, continued Mr. Sprague, that 
the bank must take every precaution — have every post manned — 
every sail secured — because of the storm raised against it, by the 
hostility of the Government ? Are they not bound to make weekly 
returns of their condition ; send to their enemies statements of 
their weakness or strength — and may they not apprehend, that, if 
a weak point is thus made known, the fact may find its way 
immediately to the great reservoir of their notes — ^Wall street — 
and a sudden attack invited ? Has it not actually ha2")pened? 
Was there not a sudden and unexampled run for near three 
hundred thousand dollars, upon the remote and supposed 
feeble branch at Savannah — an instant demand made for specie, 
which when produced, the agents of the Wall street brokers — the 
holders of the bills — did not want ? 

If, indeed, President Biddle had listened to the advice so gra- 
tuitously given him, and had not been fully prepared, the pre- 
diction would have been verified, in part, and one of the branches, 
at least, would have been prostrated. What was the object of 
sending on to Savannah to make this draft ? Was it not the hope 
that the specie was not there ? But it was there ; and, because 
the bank was ready to meet that demand, and endeavors to keep 
itself prepared elsewliere, all this outcry is made, that the dis- 
tresses of the country are caused by the bank hoarding specie in its 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. ' 371 

vaults. But suppose they had failed to get the specie ? Why, the 
cry would have been, that the bank had extended its circulation 
for the purposes of unholy gain, and was, therefore, unable to 
meet the demands upon it, and was broken and insolvent. 

But now the note is changed. Instead of bankruptcy and 
insolvency, it is too sound, too stable, too ready to pay — it will 
not consent to be broken. What had the bank done ? It had 
made some curtailment of its accommodations, but only to about 
the same as had been withdrawn in the public deposits, taken 
from it in specie, or what is equivalent to specie — it had only 
called in to fill the vacuum which the Government had created. 
Was not this indispensable ? Why have not the State banks, to 
which this money was transferred, extended their accommodations 
to the public to the amount of these transfers ? They have not done 
it. And yet the United States Bank, from which the money, to 
the amount of millions, has been taken, is denounced for not keep- 
ing up their loans, made upon them, when in its possession ; but 
the pet banks, to which the deposits have been transferred, are 
in no degree blamed for not discounting upon them when in their 
possession. The other State banks have contracted largely, prob- 
ably five times the amount that the United States Bank has, and 
yet we hear no denunciations thundered against them — they are 
not charged with being the cause of distress ; and, if the State 
banks, upon which Government has made no demands, may thus 
strengthen themselves, may not the United States Bank, from 
which so much has been taken, call in enough to fill the void 
thus created? The Bank of the United States is the only institu- 
tion that cannot call in its debts, when necessary for its own 
safety, without the most unlimited censure. It cannot fill up the 
vacuum occasioned by the withdrawal from its vaults of near eight 
millions of dollars, by a call on its debtors for a like amount, 
without being charged with having caused all the distress prevail- 
ing throughout the country. 

It seemed that deep and all-pervading distress did exist. The 
cause is palpable. It cannot be doubted or concealed. It is the 
blow struck by the Executive. To assign any other is as idle 
and irrational as it would be, if a man were to fall before our eyes 
from a dagger plunged into his heart, to suppose that he had come 
to his death by some other secret and unknown means. The 
cause was not to be mistaken ; it was palpable, notorious as the 



872 PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

open clay. The memorialists ■svlio came before the Senate were 
men of intelHgence and respectability. INlany of them charge their 
distresses to the action of the Executive, imder a Government 
which they have a right to look up to as paternal, protecting their 
rights and promoting their prosperity ; but from which, on the 
contrary, they have been made to feel as severe a blow as des- 
potism itself could inflict. Sir, if we could attribute the pres- 
ent unexampled condition of the country to some convulsion of 
nature, or some infliction of the elements, the sufferers would 
find a throb of sympathy here ; nay, I should deeply regret 
if they did not find a ready response in every breast. And shall 
we listen with less sensibility, shall we be deaf and callous because 
it is traced to human agency — to the administration, to the 
President ; bound as he is by the highest obligations, as the 
ruler of a free people, to avert from them calamity, to relieve 
their suflfering, and advance their prosperity ? 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



MAINE MEMORIALS. 



The following is in continuation of the Debate on the twenty-first of 
February, 1834, upon the Presentation of certain Memorials from Maine. 
Mr. Forsyth having addressed the Senate, Mr. Spraguc immediately 
replied as follows : 

Mr. Sprague said, that, if the gentleman from Georgia, (]Mr. 
Forsyth,) had enjoyed as good an opportunity as he, (Mr. Sprague,) 
had of inspecting the memorials, he would have found portions of 
them which clearly set forth the distress complained of. The 
Senator would find it asserted that " great and unexampled distress 
is felt by all classes." This, (said Mr. Sprague,) is some distress, 
and among some persons. " Great and unexampled distress by all 
classes," and yet the gentleman can find no distress mentioned in 
that memorial. It showed only that we see with different eyes, 
and hear with different ears — that sometimes distress produced by 
a cause which is dear and near to us, cannot be believed to exist ; 
and when, at length, it has forced its way by its loud, reiterated 
cries, then it was to be charged to some other source. At first it 
was denied. Why was it denied ? He, (Mr. Sprague,) did not 
speak of what the honorable Senator had just said. But when it 
was first announced here that the community were suffering, why 
was it that denial followed denial — that, on every occasion, when 
the subject was mentioned, gentlemen rose in their seats, and 



376 PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

stated, " all is calm and prosperous, and there is no sign of suffer- 
ing or alarm ? " It was because they knew that, if there wa^ dis- 
tress in the community, it arose from the action of the Executive, 
and they were then unwilling to believe the fact, because they 
would not censure the origin. And now, when the fact is ascer- 
tained, they are still reluctant to see it, when it is stated in a paper 
presented to the Senate. When, however, distress is found to ex- 
ist on testimony so strong that the human understanding cannot 
resist it, then Senators turn it aside on the Bank of the United 
States, or upon overtrading, or the ignorance of the commercial 
community, or the foreign market, or any other cause, other than 
that iron hand which has struck down the prosperity and the hopes 
of the country. The gentleman from Georgia had assumed the 
office of adviser. lie, (Mr. Sprague,) was willing to receive advice 
from any quarter, and from none more cheerfully than the honorable 
Senator who had been impelled to offer it, undoubtedly from his 
greater experience, and his very advanced years compared with 
himself, (Mr. Sprague.) The advice, unfortunately, happened not 
to be applicable to the present case, and he therefore would not 
deprive the gentleman of so valuable a commodity. He had best 
retain it for a more suitable occasion. 

The honoral)le Senator had gratuitously recommended that he 
should tell his, (]Mr. Sprague's,) constituents that no one here 
denies that Congress have power over this subject. He should 
like to know the extent of that poMer which it is said Congress 
possesses, and nobody denies. He would appeal to all around him 
whether Congress had any practical power over this subject. 
What is the state of the question ? Sixty days before the meeting 
of Congress, the President threw himself in advance, and removed 
the public moneys from the place in which they were deposited, 
and supposed to have been surrounded and secured by law. How, 
he, (Mr. Sprague,) would ask, are they to be restored ! Did the 
gentleman mean to say, that nobody denies here that a vote of a 
naked majority of Congress would restore them, Avhethcr the Pres- 
ident approved of the measiue or not ? Hid the gentleman mean 
to say, that, if Congress did not approve of the reasons assigned 
by the Secretary, — if either House disa])proved — that that would 
of itself operate a restoration, by annulling the act ? Will the 
gentleman say that the votes of a majority of Congress can effect a 
restoration of the deposits, without obtaining a vote of two-thirds 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 37T 

of both brandies to supersede the veto ? And, even then, have 
we any assurance that he would carry it into effect, having pro- 
nounced the bank unconstitutional, and declared that he is to sup- 
port the constitution as he understands it ? It was the most solemn 
mockeiy of power that was ever offered to a grave and delibera- 
tive body like the Senate of the United States. Have we not seen 
the Executive, by acting in advance of the meeting of Congress, 
place himself in a position to take advantage of his veto power to 
prevent the restoration, when, if he had waited sixty days only, 
and submitted the question to the legislature, there would have 
been some power in Congress, nay, there would have been some 
power in this Senate, to have prevented the removal. But, after 
the President has taken that attitude, and when it is known, as 
well as any thing future can be known, that, if there were to be a 
majority of the two branches, he stands ready to exercise his tre- 
mendous veto to paralyze their efforts to relieve the distress of the 
country, are we to be told here in mockery that we have the 
poM^er ? We ought to have the power, for it belongs to Congress 
legitimately, and by the constitution. It belongs to Congress to 
declare where the public moneys should be deposited, and how 
kept. The treasure of the nation was to be in the keeping of the 
representatives of the people ; instead of which, one man — the 
Executive, has taken it into his own keeping. Will the honorable 
Senator tell me, he is not determined to keep them by the use of 
his veto power, if even both branches of the national legislature 
should demand their restoration ? And yet Congress has power ! 
The President has frequently recommended measures of legisla- 
tion, and he is not backward in exercising all the privileges and 
prerogatives belonging to his station, if the subject should happen 
to be agreeable to his wishes. What measure does he recommend, 
what plan pi'opose, for our adoption ? Has he ever told Congress 
that they ought to be consulted as to the futui-e disposition of those 
deposits ? On the contrary, is it not the purpose and design of 
the President and his administration — I will not speak of his 
administration — of the President ; he is the administration — he is 
the government — having got possession of the money, to keep pos- 
session of it by the banks which he holds at his will, and can 
remove at his pleasure ? 

The people's money, it is said, is in the Treasury ; and where 
is the Treasury ? Just where the President chooses to make it. 



378 PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

He may put it into a bank ; he may put it into a cellar ; he may 
put it under the care of the Postmaster General, or in the pocket 
of the Fourth Auditor — and that is the Treasury. The Treasury 
of the United States is wherever the President directs it shall be 
kept, and is changed from place to place, or from person to 
person, at his will or pleasure. And yet we are told that it 
is secured by the bolts and bars of the law — it is surrounded by 
the law, and you cannot get at it unless you conform to its requi- 
sitions ; the wai-rant must be signed, countersigned, and registered ; 
all forms and ceremonies must be gone through ; but, if the Presi- 
dent wishes to reach it, he has only to command the officer to 
deliver it to him or his agent, and if he hesitates — " walk " is the 
word, and a compliant instrument is instantly substituted in his 
place. Was it not worse than idle to talk about the public treasure 
being secured by the barriers of the law, when that law presented 
no obstacle to the uncontrolled will of one man ? Was it not 
worse than a mockery to tell us that we are to act upon this sub- 
ject, when the whole efficient action has been assumed by the 
Executive, and it is known, to a moral certainty, that he intends 
that no other action shall be had ; that his experiment shall be 
tried, without interruption, interference or advice ? When we 
are told here by those whose position and associations make their 
declarations autliority, that no change is intended, no legislation 
desired ; but that the Executive plan, the Presidential experiment, 
is, at all events, to be carried through ? He hoped the Senator 
from Georgia would excuse him for not conforming to his recom- 
mendation to abstain from discussion, as he had followed his 
example rather than his precept. 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



BOSTON MEMORIAL. 



The Removal of the Deposits from the Bank of the United States, by 
the President, having produced deep pecuniary Distress throughout 
the Country, and especially in the Atlantic cities. Memorials and Peti- 
tions to Congress poured in, vehemently complaining of the Act of the 
President, and ui-gently praying for Relief One, from the City of Boston, 
was carried to the Seat of Government by a large Committee, and pre- 
sented to the Senate, by Mr. Webster. The Conunittee, having also 
requested Mr. Sprague to address the Senate upon its presentation, he 
did so, in the following Remarks. 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



REMARKS 



Made by Mr. Sprague, on the Presentation to tlie Senate, by Mr. 
Webster, of the Memorial from the City of Boston, complaining of the 
Act of the President in removing the Deposits, and praying Relief from 
the deep Distress which had been occasioned thereby. 

Mr. Sprague rose and said, that he had been requested, and 
although he felt, as he was sure that every one must feel, that it 
would be an act of supererogation to add any thing to the forcible 
remarks which had been already made, yet he could not refuse to 
add his testimony to the high character of the individuals who 
had transmitted this memorial. He supposed that because he had 
long enjoyed the acquaintance of many of the signers, and of all 
of the committee who had borne the memorial hither, it was 
expected of him that he should offer that testimony. 

The Senate had now before them the memorial of about seven 
thousand of the citizens of the city of Boston, and their testimony 
to the existing distress ; and this testimony might be considered as 
strong and as emphatic as any which had ever yet reached the 
Senate, or been presented here by any of the representatives of 
the people in their places. This testimony came from New Eng- 
land, the land of the primitive pilgrims — from Massachusetts, the 
first State which moved in that glorious struggle to which he was 
happy that allusion had been made yesterday by the gentleman 
from Virginia, and which had led in our independence — from 
Boston, which, in that State, had been the earliest to resist oppres- 



S84: PUBLIC DISTRESS. 

sion, and to start in the career of liberty. He was not going to 
attempt any eulogiuni on that section of the country. The names 
which he had pronounced were in themselves a higher eulogium 
than any language could convey, and would carry to every heart 
a feeling of impressiveness Avhich no words could increase. 

You, sir, continued Mr. Sprague, A^•ho recently have visited 
those places, in company with the Chief INIagistrate — you need no 
language of mine to impress on you the true character of this 
people. You have yourself recently stood in the high places in 
Boston and its vicinity, on the heights of Dorchester on one side 
of the city, and on Bunker's hill on the other ; at Charlestown 
and at Cambridge. You have there almost had in view the plains 
of Concord and of Lexington ; and have stood Mhere the blood 
of our fathers called to their descendants, " Sons, scorn to be 
slaves ! " — where that flag was first unfurled which has since 
floated, in proud triumph, over every wave, and against every foe 
— in that Faneuil Hall, where the voices of the Adamses, the 
Hancocks, and the Otises, first breathed into this country the 
breath of life. You have partaken of the unbounded hosjiitality 
of this people, and I am sure you will respond to the sentiment, 
that this is the land where friends find a welcome, and foes a 
grave. 

If he was not misinformed, (Mr. Sprague continued,) during 
that visit, while the Chief jNIagistrate was reposing in the city of 
Boston, this disastrous measure had been decided on, which had 
now brought before the Senate the protest and memorial of seven 
thousand of these citizens. If he had not been greatly misin- 
formed, the letter of the twenty-fifth of June, addressed to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, was dated from Boston, during that 
visit, and at the very time when the person whose name was 
affixed to it, was confined to his chamber by sickness, in a dark 
room, and in a condition of entire incapability of physical or 
intellectual effort. Would to Heaven, that, amidst the scene of 
uninterrupted prosperity which then surrounded him on all sides, 
the respect which was everywhere paid to the authorities of the 
Union, some strong influence could have withheld his hand from 
that signature, while such tributes of respect and approbation were 
tendered to those who were the agents in continuing to us a 
Government which provided for and i)rotected the general happi- 
ness. That people, whom the President then saw in a condition 



PUBLIC DISTRESS. 



o»0 



of prosperity and gladness, had now come hither by thousands, 
with the language of gloom, and sorrow, and dismay. It was 
from the same source, it was under the same roof, as has been so 
well remarked by the gentleman from ]\Iassachusetts, that memo- 
rials, protests, and petitions, were transmitted to the British 
Parliament. Those memorials, protests, and petitions, denounced, 
at that time, an act of political power, seizing their money M-ith- 
out the consent of either themselves, or their representatives. 
The descendants of those people come now, and protest against 
an act of political power ; also, seizing their money without their 
consent, or the consent of their representatives. The memorials, 
protests, and petitions sent to the British Parliament, were con- 
temned. He trusted that a different fate awaited those which 
were now sent to Congress. The memorialists had come hither, 
because they thought that they lived, or ought to live, under a 
government of laws. They have come here with faith in law, and 
in the national legislature, and ask for relief and for redress. It 
had been remarked, that they did not go to the Executive man- 
sion, they did not pass by the Halls of Congress, to lay their 
complaints at the feet of the Executive. They believed that the 
Executive had ho right to interfere ; and the manner in which 
the other committees, who had come hither, were treated by the 
Chief Magistrate, had prevented them from exposing themselves 
to similar treatment. Their behavior to the Chief Magistrate in 
the city of Boston, shows that they know how to respect the 
official dignitaries of the country; their refusal now to go to him, 
shows that they know how to respect themselves. 



25 



PRESIDENT'S PROTEST 



PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



Mr. Clay's Resolutions, condemning the conduct of the President, in 
removing the Deposits, passed the Senate on the 28th of March, 1834. 
Those Resolutions will be found prefixed to a preceding Speech, page 335. 
On Thursday, the seventeenth day of April, President Jackson sent in 
his famous Protest against those Resolutions. It was immediately read 
by the Secretary, and took the Senate, or, at least, all those who were 
opposed to the Administration, entirely by surprise. Nothing could have 
been more unexpected. The instant the reading was concluded, Mr. 
Sprague and Mr. Poindexter both rose to address the Senate. The latter, 
being in front of the President, was first seen, and obtained the floor. 
He spoke for about five minutes, vehemently and indignantly. As soon 
as he had concluded, Mr. Sprague arose, and made the Speech which is 
here given. 

The Protest, when road to the Senate, was in manuscript. In 'it, the 
President called the Heads of the Departments, " his Secretary." This 
expression was several times repeated, and is pointedly animadverted 
upon in the following Speech. Afterwards, when the Protest came to be 
printed, it was found, that, in every instance but one, the expression, "his 
Secretary," had been changed to " the Secretary." Mr. Sprague, recollect- 
ing how the document had been read, called the attention of the Senate to 
this change. The Secretary of the Senate thereupon stated, that the day 
after the following Speech was made, the private Secretary of the Presi- 
dent of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, and requested 
him to make those alterations, which he declined doing, because the docu- 
ment had been read, but that he pjlaced the word " the," in pencil, over 
the word '• his," on the manuscript. This statement, and animadversions 
upon it, will be found in Gales & Seaton's Congressional Debates, Vol. 
X. Part II. page 1421. 

On the 21st of April, four days after the Protest, the President sent 
in an explanatory Message, intended to obviate the force of some of the 
Remarks in this Speech. 



PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 



SPEECH 

On its being presented to the Senate, April 17, 1834. 

Mr. Sprague rose to make a very few observations ujDon 
tlie extraordinary paper just read, more in grief than in anger ; 
for, whatever feelings might be excited on ordinary occa- 
sions, by such assumptions and assaults, he thought that, on an 
occasion like the present, in relation to a document coming from 
such a source, and calculated to produce such an effect, if sus- 
tained, on the institutions of the country, all other feelings should 
be merged in those of solemn and deep regret. The claims of 
executive power, set forth in that document, if admitted and estab- 
lished, would leave no other Department of this Government than 
a single Executive. What does the President say ? He asserts 
that all executive power is vested in him ; that he is responsible 
for all the acts of every public officer ; that all right, authority, 
and power, given them by law is, and must be, vested and embod- 
ied in him, as head and fountain of all ; that he stands, therefore, 
as the sole executive officer ; all others being merged in him. In 
what language did he speak of the Secretary of the Treasury ? 
** His Secretary " — "one of his Secretaries." Thus the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury is designated as the Secretary of the Presi- 
dent, and not the Secretary of the law. All the Secretaries are 
his Secretaries ; the Major-General of the Army is his Major- 
General ; the Captains in the Navy are his Captains ; and all the 
civil officers of the Government are his officers — his instruments. 



392 PRESIDENT'S TOOTEST. 

as denominated in another part of this document. The forty thou- 
sand officers in the Bhie Book are his officers — his instruments — 
his army — to do his bidding, as his creatures — knowing no law 
but his will. Did not this correspond with what it was known 
that he had said to the Philadelphia committee, as well as to oth- 
ers, when he spoke of this Government as " my Government ? " 
Yes, sir, my Government ! This Government is my Govern- 
ment, and all its officers are my officers ! " I am the State ! " 

Having thus embodied all executive power in a single individ- 
ual, what does he arrogate as belonging essentially to the Exec- 
utive ? lie claims, in this document, what never before was 
heard in this country ; he had gone beyond any who ever claimed 
extraordinary power for the Executive, when he said that, under 
the constitution, the President must have possession of all the 
public property, and all the public money ! 

Not content with advancing this unprecedented doctrine, this 
astounding claim, once, he repeats it in another form, and declares, 
in express terms, that " Congress cannot take out of the hands of 
the Executive Department, the custody of the public property or 
money, without an assumption of executive power, and a subver- 
sion of the first principles of the Constitution." lie had gone 
farther than even his warmest friends on this floor, or in the 
country. What did gentlemen say, when the debate on the sub- 
ject of the public deposits was going on ? They told us, (said Mr. 
Sprague,) that, although the deposits were removed, they were still 
subject to the control of Congress. It was insisted by some, that 
the removal itself had placed the moneys under the power of 
Congress. It was repeated and reiterated. We were taunted 
with the idea that Congress might, by legislation, determine their 
possession ; and now the President comes here and asserts, that 
the Constitution gives him the sole possession of the public money, 
and that Congress cannot take it from him. What further? 
After claiming all executive power, both of the purse and the 
sword, what further ? A new source of boundless power is dis- 
covered. !My friend from Mississippi (Mr. Poindexter) had stated 
that the Constitution gave the President no right to send this pro- 
test to Congress, and he read the clause designating on what 
occasions the President may communicate with the National Leg- 
islature ; but the gentleman did not observe the new source from 
whence this power was now claimed. Where did tlic President 



PRESroENT'S PROTEST. 393 

pretend to find the authority to send this extraordinary protest ? 
Not to give information to Congress on the state of the Union ; 
not to recommend any legislative measures ; no, he finds his 
authority in his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Consti- 
tution of the United States ; he distinctly claims to derive sub- 
stantive power from the terms of his official oath. A claim 
unprecedented, astounding, unlimited, and illimitable. He is to 
defend, preserve and protect the Constitution. And, as the Sen- 
ate had passed a resolution, which, in the opinion of the Execu- 
tive, violated the Constitution, he conceives it to be his duty to 
come here and correct it. What other violations of the Constitu- 
tion will he undertake to correct? If the Supreme Court shall, in 
his opinion, transcend the constitution, will he not go there also 
and control them ? 

Sir, said Mr. Sprague, with the sword in one hand and the 
purse in the other — with the possession of all Executive power, 
and with the treasures of the nation, which, he says. Congress can- 
not divest him of, together with the right and duty, under his oath 
of office, to vindicate the Constitution against all others, even the 
great coordinate departments, where is the limit of the President's 
power, or his pretensions to carry it into practical effect ? He is 
to see that the Constitution is preserved ! He has told us, on a 
former occasion, by message, that he is to support the Constitution, 
as he understands it ; not as the Judiciary exjDOunds it ; not as 
Congress declares it, but as he individually shall understand it. 
And now, because the Senate has passed resolutions expressive of 
its opinions, he comes forward and says it is in violation of the 
Constitution, and therefore he must correct it. He asserts that it 
is acting judicially, and that he is not to be touched but by im- 
peachment. Impeachment ! and against the President, wielding 
the enormous powers which he arrogates ! Does he believe any 
man weak enough to suppose that impeachment is any security 
against him ? So far from being any restraint, it would effectu- 
ally shield him from responsibility and animadversion, if he could 
thereby gag the two Houses of Congress, so that they could 
not either or both, express opinions against his alarming encroach- 
ment, unless in the solemn form of an impeachment. 

He assumes that the declaration of the Senate is a criminal pro- 
cedure against him, and then enters into an argument to prove 
that it is unauthorized. He might as well assume that it was 



394 PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 

piracy, and, after calling it by a false name, reason upon it from 
his own assumptions. Sir, the expressions of opinion on the part 
of the Senate, that the President had assumed powers not granted 
by the Constitution, is said to be a judicial sentence, without 
notice of trial, and without the previous formalities required by 
the Constitution ; and yet this same President has heretofore 
denour.ced an act of the Senate as unconstitutional ! "Was that in 
him a judicial sentence ? In an Executive message of March, 
1833, but a little more than a year since, he declares that a res- 
olution of the Senate is unconstitutional, and, therefore, he would 
make no more nominations to certain offices. [Mr. Sprague then 
read the message.] Here, sir, is a declaration that the Senate has 
acted unconstitutionally ; and yet, although the President may 
declare that we have violated the Constitution, in restraining his 
power, the Senate may not presume to express its opinions with 
regard to the President's seizing upon the money of the People, 
without being charged with having pronounced a judicial sentence 
without trial. Take this veiy document, this protest itself ; is it 
not filled, saturated with declarations that the Senate has violated 
the Constitution ? Is it not almost wholly denunciatory? And, 
at the instant, in the very document in which he is uttering these 
accusations and denunciations against this body, he is making it a 
matter of grievous complaint that the Senate has simply expressed 
an opinion that he has transcended the limits of the Constitution. 
There was a resolution introduced in the Senate some years since, 
similar in its principle and effect to this which is so much com- 
plained of, and yet I am not aware that the President, or any of 
his friends, have ever denounced it as an assumption of uncon- 
stitutional power. It was the resolution of a Senator from North 
Carolina, not now a member of the Senate, (Mr. Branch,) which 
I will take the liberty to read to the Senate. It is as follows : 

[Mr. Sprague here read the preamble and resolution, relative 
to the Panama mission.] 

Here the President announced that he had accepted the invita- 
tion to take part in the Panama Congress, and that ministers 
would be commissioned ; in consequence of which the declaration 
in the resolution just read was made. I am not aware that it ever 
was questioned that it was competent for the Senate so to express 
its opinion. This protest asserts that the resolution to which it 
relates is not legislative, nor designed as the foundation of legis- 



PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 395 

lation. How does the President know that ? How does he know 
that it was not intended to lay the foundation of a bill for the res- 
toration of the deposits ? He undertakes to say that this body 
cannot pass a resolution for the purpose of preventing an evil pre- 
cedent. Might not the Senate have said, on this occasion, that 
it expressed and recorded its disapprobation, lest the act of the 
Executive might be drawn into a dangerous precedent ? Might 
it not be deemed important to prevent the effects of silent acqui- 
escence in Executive usurpation ? We have seen how precedents 
to enlarge Executive power are urged upon us. Silent acquies- 
cence has been again and again construed into an approbation of 
Executive measures, and yet the Senate is not permitted to speak'; 
and, if they do not speak, silence is assumed to be approbation 
and support. If precedents were needed to sustain our course, I 
might cite the proceedings in relation to the Seminole war ; I 
might also cite the resolution in the other House in relation to 
the Panama mission ; but it is unnecessary now to dwell further 
upon this topic. There is one part of this protest to which it is 
proper that I should advert. The President has seen fit to set 
forth, at full length, certain legislative proceedings in particular 
States, which might be supposed to have a bearing on individual 
members of this body. He has done me the honor to refer to my 
vote upon this occasion, and to my having advocated the resolu- 
tion, and then detailed certain proceedings of the State — no, not 
of the State, but of the Legislature. Sir, all I need say to the 
tenant of the White House is, that, if the Secretary of the Treasury 
is claimed by him to be his Secretary, I am not his Senator. I 
recognize no right in the President of the United States to lecture 
me on my Senatorial duties, whatever power he may claim over 
his trembling officers, or however arbitrarily and oppressively he 
may control them. I am not his officer ; and, so far as I am con- 
cerned at least, he shall learn that this Government is xot his 
Government. I recognize no right in AndreAV Jackson to come 
between me and the People I represent. It is not for him to say 
what opinions I shall hold, or what doctrines sustain. I yield 
not to his dictation ; I submit not to his assaults ; and I trust that 
my constituents, the spirited and intelligent People of Maine, will 
indignantly spurn his audacious interference between them and 
their servant. To that people alone I hold myself solemnly 
responsible. If, in their judgment, they shall think that I merit 



39G PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 

rebuke for believing that lie liad no right to sicze the public treas- 
ure ; or that a National Bank is conducive to their prosperity, I 
shall submit in all humility to that chastisement from them, but 
from no other hand — no, not even from Andrew the First, acting 
Monaich of the White House. The period is rapidly approach- 
ing, M'hen, at the ballot-box, in their primary assemblies, that 
people may express more directly than they have yet done, their 
opinion of my public services. Until this unprecedented Presi- 
dential attack in the face of the nation, it was to me a matter of 
indifference whether my political life should be continued or not. 
I have been ready, at all times, to sacrifice it to my convictions of 
duty. The approbation of my constituents, to whom I am bound 
by the strong tics of duty and gratitude. Mould indeed be at all 
times inexpressibly dear ; while, on the other hand, their sanction 
of the assumptions of Executive powers, which would convert 
this free Ecpublic into a Government of one man, would leave 
not a single wish to remain in its service. If they desire that 
their representative should be the mere supple tool of the Presi- 
dent, to do his bidding, register his edicts, echo his royal man- 
dates, and submit to his chastisement here, they Avill seek one 
better fitted for such a service. 

That there are such to be found in some parts of the country, 
we have pregnant evidence around us. We see members of Con- 
gress openly avowing that they were elected as Jackson men, 
pledged to support all his measures, reserving to themselves no 
exercise of reason or judgment, or conscience, or knowledge. I 
was not elected as Jackson's man ; I am not his man ; I am no 
man's man. I was elected to perform my legislative functions, 
according to my own convictions of duty, after the most mature and 
deliberate reflection ; and I have done so. I have sought no per- 
sonal aggrandizement. I have not bowed the knee to Baal ; and I 
will not now submit to this new prerogative of Presidential 
animadversion. I am aware that the President disclaims having 
referred to the acts of these State Legislatures, and the votes of 
Senators here, for any other purpose than as a mere matter of 
history — merely as a chronicler of the times. He has selected 
these particular portions of modern history, not with any view of 
assailing a co-ordinate branch of the Government ; not Avith a 
purpose of attacking ])articular members, or endeavoring to hold 
them up in array against their State Legislatures — oh no ! that 



PEESIDENT'S PROTEST. 397 

would be un-\vorthy the Chief Magistrate, and disreputable to his 
station ; but these selections are made merely as matter of taste, 
or as specimens of his style as an historian. It is merely because 
they belong to history. What a pity it is, sir, that he should not 
have given us some other specimens of historical Avriting — some 
narrative of flicts, not quite familiar to the public ; for these 
which he has selected are the same which have appeared, almost 
daily, for the last three months, in the vituperative columns of the 
Official Organ. Would it not have been as well, sir, if he had 
given us something of the secret history of those resolutions — the 
source from which they emanated, the initiated few to whom they 
were first communicated, the caucuses in which they were decreed, 
and all the modus ojierandi by which private judgment was sub- 
dued by Executive and party discipline ? This would, indeed, 
have enlightened the public, and aided their understanding of his 
favorite selections of modern history. He might have furnished 
us, too, with much curious reading, if he had chronicled the 
proceedings of his upper and nether cabinets- But I take leave of 
the historian. 

The President, after making his onset upon this body, and 
arrogating to himself extraordinary and unlimited powers, 
attempts to enlist the sympathies of the Public, under the baseless 
pretext, that the resolution of the Senate assailed his private char- 
acter. He dwells on his great public services, and pronounces 
his own eulogium. It is the old expedient. Thus has it been 
in all ages, when the successful warrior thirsts for supreme 
dominion. He appeals to the people, recurs to his past services, 
points to his wounds, to the dangers he has braved, the victories 
he has achieved, denounces those who would expose his ambition, 
and resist his encroachments, as enemies and calumniators — and 
appeals to the dear Peoj)le, if they can refuse anything to such 
an injured benefactor. Will they not, from gratitude and sympa- 
thy, crush the Constitution, and permit him to rule as uncon- 
trolled master ? 

There is a closing sentiment in this extraordinary document, 
in which I most cordially concur. It is, that Governznent ought 
to be known only by the blessings it diffuses ; like the dews of 
heaven, it should be seen and felt only in the freshness and 
beauty which it spreads over the fair surface of creation. And 
how is " MY Government " noAV seen and felt ? Look abroad 



398 PRESIDENT'S PllOTEST. 

upon this wide extended land ; see its green fields withered by 
the blast of oppression — the bread of industry snatched from the 
mouth of labor. Hear the piercing cries of "widows' and orphans; 
the supplications, the execrations, which daily and hourly come 
up to us from all classes, and occupations, and pursuits, upon that 
heartless and iron-handed despotism, which has struck down their 
prosperity, blasted their hopes, crushed them to the earth, and 
there still holds them in torture and agony, in its unrelenting and 
unrelaxing giasp — and then hear the arbitiary author of all this 
wide-spread ruin and heart-rending miseiy, calmly tell us that 
Government should be, like the dews of heaven, seen and felt 
only in the beauty and freshness which it diffuses ! 

Such is his theory, and such his practice ! It is another 
illustration with what effrontery iron-hearted oppression can put 
forth pretensions to mildness and benignity. 



PART II. 



SPEECHES, ADDRESSES, AND ARGUMENTS, 

NOT CONGRESSIONAL, 
BETWEEN THE YEARS 1825 AND 1853. 



26 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the Fourth of July, 1826, 
the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Of all 
the members of the Continental Congress, they were the most distinguished 
and influential in producing that Declaration, and no names in our history 
were more intimately associated with it, in the public mind. Beside this, 
they had rendered memorable services to the country in many important 
stations. They had been, respectively, at the head of the two great polit- 
ical parties into which the nation was divided, soon after the adoption of 
the Constitution, and had, successively, filled the office of President of 
the United States. The departure of either, at any time, would have 
deeply affected the public, but the simultaneous death of both, on such an 
Anniversary, produced, everywhere, the most profound emotion. Eulogies 
and Discourses, upon the occasion, were called forth in all parts of the 
country. 

The following Address was delivered by Mr. Sprague, on the twenty- 
sixth of July, 1826, by request of the citizens of Hallowell, Augusta, 
and Gardner. The anecdote respecting Mr. Adams and Commodore 
Tucker, the author had from the lips of the Commodore, himself. Other 
gentlemen, now living, have heard the same from the gallant old sailor. 
It is believed that it was printed, for the first time, in this Address. 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON, 

DELIVERED AT HALLOWELL, JULY 26, 1826. 



It is good for us to be here. We are assembled to pay our 
tribute of respect to the memory of distinguished benefactors, to 
indulge in recollections of exalted virtues and resplendent talents 
devoted to the service of our country and of mankind. Adams 
and Jefferson are no more ! They, whose names are associated 
with all that belongs to us — are intertwined with whatever is dear 
in the recollections of youth, and all that is valuable in the pos- 
sessions of manhood — which were pronounced with reverence by 
trembling age, and lisping infancy, and admired throughout the 
civilized world — they have passed away — the shroud, the coffin, 
and the hearse, have received them ; the long train has followed 
them in sable, solemn silence, and the tomb has echoed to the 
hollow tread of the mourners ! 

To do justice to one such man, would far transcend my feeble 
powers. How doubly impossible where both are combined ! If 
the task you have assigned me required this, I should, indeed, 
shrink from it in despair. But we are assembled to do them 
homage, not in the vain expectation of adding to their glory, but 
to obey the impulse of our own feelings, and to prove that we 
appreciate, and are worthy to retain, the blessings we have derived 
from them. The occasion does not call for the minutiae of their 
lives and characters, and I shall attempt only, in an humble man- 
ner, to dwell, for a few moments, on their prominent features, and 
present in connexion some plain reflections upon the nature, 
extent, and effects of their labors. 



408 EULOGY OX ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 

We inquire not who were the progenitors of such men. No 
ancestry could add to that lustre, which will gild their descend- 
ants for ages to come. 

As their celebrity is derived from their intellect, it would be 
most interesting, if time permitted, to trace the early cultivation 
and the whole training of their minds. Both received their educa- 
tion at public colleges, and both studied the profession of the law. 

Mr. Adams made such distinguished progress in this profession, 
that, at an early age, the office of Chief Justice of his native 
State M'as tendered to him ; but he declined its acceptance. His 
successful defence of the British officers, tried for murder at the 
time of the Boston massacre, when popular indignation against 
them had been excited almost to fury, shows at once his power 
and independence of mind, and his high sense of justice and 
professional duty. 

Mr. Jefferson rendered a most important service to his State, by 
aiding in the revisal of all the Colonial and British statutes in 
force in Virginia, and reducing them, with a part of the common 
law, to one code. He divested them of their aristocratical fea- 
tures and feudal barbarisms, and, by abolishing entiiils, and the 
rights of primogeniture, decreed the equal distribution of estates 
among children — the true agrarian law of republics, beneath 
which the greatest masses of Avealth soon melt away. 

Their course of legal study and professional exertion, was 
admirably adapted to prepare them both for their destined career ; 
to strengthen, enlaigc, and liberalize the mind ; to give clear 
views of natural rights, and the violation of them by human 
institutions. I know it is said, that this profession tends to 
narrow and contract the sphere of thought. It does so, where 
the attention is fixed, with microscopic vision, upon its rigid 
forms and the artificial processes of mere technical deduction ; 
where precedents, like the decrees of Fate, demand a blind sub- 
mission, and inveterate absurdities are bowed down to, with super- 
stitious awe, which holds the intellect in bondage, and shrinks 
from improvement as impiety. But those of whom we speak, 
regarded law in its true exalted character ; the rule of human 
action founded on right and reason, designed for the security and 
happiness of all rational beings — the fountain of all human socie- 
ties and human enjoyment. Its origin and its objects, the founda- 
tion and the fabric, Avcre by them examined with the severest 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 409 

scrutiny, in a spirit of liberal philosophy ; calling into exercise 
the most enlarged comprehension and the most vigorous grasp of 
intellect. 

In 17T0, Mr. Adams began his political career as representative 
from the town of Boston. In 1774, being elected to the council, 
he had the honor of being negatived by Governor Gage, on 
account of his political conduct. 

Mr. Jefferson was scarcely more than twenty-one years of age, 
when he was elected a member of the legislature of Virginia. 
Thus, like the Father of his country, he was called early into the 
public service. While they were yet scarcely hardened into man- 
hood, to Washington, as a military commander, Virginia entrusted 
the lives of her citizens, and the safety of her frontier ; and Jeffer- 
son mingletl his counsels among the reverend and the grave in her 
halls of legislation. Such was the policy of ^^irginia, which has 
nourished her great men, and clustered around her so many bril- 
liant names, and gave her, for a time, such preponderating sway 
in the national councils. Whenever a new luminary was discov- 
ered emerging from her horizon, she scattered no mists of preju- 
dice, nor clouds of distrust before him, but courted his eaiiiest 
beams, and gloried in his meridian spkndor. 

Adams and Jefferson, in the Colonial Assemblies of Massachu- 
setts and Virginia, and in the Continental Congress, Avere anion o- 
the earliest and most strenuous opposers of British aggression. 
They were conspicuously active in the measures which led to, and 
maintained, our Independence. They knew well the magnitude 
of the undertaking, but they knew also the immense importance 
of our severance from the mother country. They early foresaw 
that it was to be a contest of blood ; but they saw, too, that the 
object Avas worth all the cost of sacrifices. and dangers, through 
which it was to be attained. It is for the essential part they took 
in the great work of our Revolution, that we owe them our pro- 
foundest gratitude — a work, the magnitude of which cannot be 
exaggerated — its value can never be estimated. 

There are those, indeed, who, dazzled by the glory of Britain, 
are apt to think that there is nothing so forbidding in a connexion 
with her, and that there could not be much danger under the 
dominion of so brave, so free, and refined a nation. We may 
concede to them all that is asked for her arts, her literature, and 
her science ; for the measured freedom which she enjoys, and the 



410 EULOGY ON ADAMS AXl) JEFFERSON. 

watchfulness and vigor Avith which she guards and maintains her 
rights. But we are not to forget the principles of human nature, 
and that history and observation teach us that those who are most 
jealous of their own freedom, are often the most ready to bind the 
yoke and wield the lash of servitude upon others. The refined 
Athenian, and the lofty Roman, had their slaves, and the invincible 
Spartans their helots ; and even in a portion of our own thrice- 
blessed country, we see the high-minded, the free, and the chiv- 
alric, holding their fellow-men in bondage. ]3ut why do we seek 
other illustrations, when the example of Britain herself, is before 
us ? Look at her treatment of her colonies, hardly excepting even 
those now remaining on this side the Atlantic, from whose pov- 
erty she can filch no wealth, and who, being contiguous to us, 
and in full view of our unrestrained happiness, are held by so 
feeble a tie, that, if she attempt to straighten, she must sunder it. 

Look at Ireland — whose green fields have been scorched by 
oppression, and where the fruits of Heaven are blasted by the 
breath of man ! See her emaciated sons ; with starvation on the 
one hand, and the gibbet on the other — they crawl into their low, 
mud-built huts, to cairy to famishing children only a com- 
munion of wretchedness ! Look at India — where Ambition has 
reddened his hands in the blood of millions ; and Rapine has 
rioted on their spoils ! — where Avarice has been sent to glean the 
fields, which War and Desolation had reaped ! 

I trust that I speak from no prejudice, much less from any 
narrow spirit of hostility towards England. But I would have 
you appreciate the freedom you enjoy, and the merits of those 
who gave it. I know that much, very much, of the wrong which 
Britain inflicts upon others, results inevitably from her own con- 
dition. Her sense of justice yields to the necessities of her own 
excessive population. But this renders not her connexion the less 
disastrous. The lion is indeed of noble nature, but, when his 
own whelps cry out for hunger, let all beware of his embrace. 

It is mere delusion to suppose that we should have escaped the 
deadly effects of England's unrestrained dominion, if our fathers 
had not resisted. Had they yielded to her claim of right " to 
bind us in all cases whatsoever," it is vain to say that our Inde- 
pendence would only have been for a short time delayed. She 
would have hound our infant-giant limbs in fetters, and stinted 
them forever of their fair proportions. Our people would not 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 411 

have multiplied as now — our commerce would not have covered 
every sea, nor our extended fields gloried in their harvests ; but 
the forest would still have frowned around us, and poverty, and 
weakness, and dependence have been our portion. This is the 
thraldom — such are the miseries from which Adams and Jefferson 
have redeemed us, and honored and blessed be their names 
forever. 

The Continental Congress was the theatre of their severest trials 
and highest glory. Among the measures of that august assembly, 
the Declaration of our Independence stands preeminent. Every 
thing connected with it excites deep and acute interest. The 
motion " that these States^ are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent," was made by E-ichard Henry Lee, and, as it has 
been asserted, at the instance of Mr. Adams. The committee on 
this motion consisted of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Sherman, 
and Livingston, by whom Jefferson and Adams were appointed a 
sub-committee, and then the making of the original draught of 
the declaration was devolved on Mr. Jefferson alone. That which 
he presented was approved by Mr. Adams, then by the whole 
committee, and reported to the Congress without the change of a 
single syllable. Some portions of the original were stricken out 
by that body before its adoj)tion ; among which was a most elo- 
quent and impressive invective against the king, for having intro- 
duced negro slavery into the colonies, and still continuing the 
slave trade ; which Mr. Jefferson's friends would not permit to 
remain, but they could not deprive him of the honor of having 
proposed it. 

The Declaration, in its present form, was adopted by vote of 
the Congress, and subscribed by its members, on the Fourth of 
July, 1776, the most important day, politically speaking, that the 
world has ever seen. Our admiration of this instrument is raised, 
not merely by the unequalled elegance and elevation of its style, 
but by the matchless thoughts that strike so forcibly upon the 
heart — by the principles it develops, and that firmness of pur- 
pose, which gives form and vigor to those principles ; and that 
spirit which breathes them into life, and energy, and action. But 
it is as a great solemn j^oUtical act that it demands our highest 
veneration. What had the world ever seen that was equal, that 
approached to it ? Go to antiquity — to Greece, to Kome — travel 
over France, Spain, Germany, and the whole of modern continen- 



412 EULOGY OX ADAMS AXD JEFFERSON. 

tal Europe. All vras comparative gloom ; political science had 
not risen. Go to the isles of the sea — to Britain, then the freest 
of nations ; and Englishmen would proudly point you to their 
Magna Charta, as their most valuable birthright, and the greatest 
bulwark of liberty which any nation had raised. It was so. And 
yet how does it dwindle in the contrast with our Declaration of 
Independence, which was a greater era in the history of mankind, 
than Magna Charta was, in the history of England ! The latter 
was a concession, extorted by armed barons from their Sovereign. 
It was, what it is called, a chdrter, from the king, as the fountain 
of all ri<?ht and power, lie M^as their lord and master — the ulti- 
mate owner of all the soil in the kingdom ; and this was a grant, 
forced, it is true, but still a arrant, from his grace and favor, allow- 
in"' the exercise of some rights to his subjects, and consenting to 
some limits to his royal prerogative. 

The former -is not a grant of privileges to a portion of a single 
nation — it is a declaration, by a Avhole people, of what before exis- 
ted, and will always exist, — the native equality of the human race, 
as the true foundation of all political, of all human, institutions. 
It was an assertion, that we held our rights, as Ave hold our exist- 
ence, bv no charter, except from the King of kings. It vindicated 
the dignitv of our nature. It rested upon this " one inextinguish- 
able truth, which never has been, and never can be, wholly eradi- 
cated from the human heart, placed as it is, in the very core and 
centre of it by its Maker, that man was not made the property of 
man — that human power is a trust for human benefit, and that, 
when it is abused, resistance becomes justice and duty." 

This great truth was proclaimed to the world, with a voice that 
reached over oceans and continents, and found an instant response 
in every human breast. I cannot exaggerate to myself the effects 
it will produce, not merely upon this country, but upon the future 
condition of the human race. Its power was soon felt in the tre- 
mendous revolutions of France, and the convulsive throes for 
liberty throughout Europe. 

But, it may be asked, how could those scenes, of horror and of 
crime, have flowed from the pure and btneficent principles of that 
Declaration ? The answer is ready. The soil of France was not 
prepared for the seeds of liberty ; and falsehood, impiety, and un- 
bridled passion sprang up. Tlu> immense populace were there 
sunk in the depths of brutal ignorance. It had been for ages the 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 413 

policy of the civil rulers and the clergy, to keep the people in 
profound darkness, as the means of perpetuating their own power. 
The mind and the body were both held in thraldom. An arbi- 
trary government had prostrated them to the earth, and a catholic 
priesthood had thrown over them the pall of bigotry, through 
which no ray from above could penetrate. Ground into the dust, 
they felt like men, though they could not see like men. They 
knew that they were wronged, but knew not the means of redress ; 
and, rising in their wrath, were indiscriminate in their vengeance. 
The people, there, were the strong man, who had been shorn of 
his locks, and bound in fetters, and his eyes sealed up from the 
light of heaven, and his toil and agony were made the profit and 
the sport of lords and nobles ! No wonder, that, in his blindness 
and his rage, he laid hold of the pillars of the fabric, which sus- 
tained them, and buried himself and his oppressors in undis- 
tinguished ruin. 

But the convulsions and miseries of Europe, since our Revolu- 
tion, have not been in vain. They afford lessons to rulers and 
subjects which cannot be forgotten. Inquiry has been excited, 
knowledge is extending, the rights and duties of man are becom- 
ing better understood, and must in their progress be universally 
asserted and exercised. By the effects of our Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, South America has been emancipated, Europe enlight- 
ened, and Greece, unhappy Greece, aroused from her lethargy of 
centuries. 

Mr. Adams's participation in this great measure, is not less hon- 
orable than that of his illustrious colleague. His whole soul 
seemed wrapt up in the issue. His efforts w^ere unremitted. 
*' Instant in season and out of season " — in the Congress and out 
of it — in conversation and in debate, he exerted all his powers of 
persuasion, and poured forth his highest strains of eloquence ; 
and by the aid of Him, who " touched Isaiah's hallowed lips with 
fire," he moved the heart, and convinced the mind, and his glori- 
ous purpose was accomplished. To have been, the one the author, 
and the other the most efficient advocate, of that Declaration, is 
fame enough for both. It has placed them on the highest pin- 
nacle of human greatness, and their names will go down with 
unfading glory to future ages. 

But it was not by this act alone that Jefferson and Adams were 
distinguished in the Continental Congress. In that assembly of 



4U EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 

glowing patriots, they Avere always among the most ardent ; with 
the daring and fearless, they were among the boldest ; M'ith the 
unyielding, among the firmest ; and with the sagacious, the 
wisest. And when we say that they were eminently conspicuous 
in the old Congress in Philadelphia, in order to understand the 
full merit of such distinction, we must recollect who w^ere the 
men that composed that body. If we examine their individual 
characters, their State papers, and their public acts, we shall, Avith 
the celebrated Chatham, yield them collectively our unqualified 
admiration. It is difficult to speak of them, with simple justice, 
without appearing to use the language of extravagant eulogium. 
For all, who have not well considered, will think it incredible, 
that they should have been men of such overshadowing greatness. 
But it should be remembered that great occasions make great men. 
That it is amidst political revolutions that powerful minds are 
formed and called into action. The sparks of genius are struck 
out by the concussion, and the fury of the blast but increases the 
intensity of its fires. In the calm of peace, intellect may be tor- 
pid, or the inferior and umvorthy, by the little arts of intrigue, 
may rise to place and power. But, when the storm rages, and all 
feel that they are embarked together upon the waves, then, when 
the timid quail, and the feeble tremble, and the short-sighted are 
confounded — none but the strong hand, and the firm heart, and 
the unblenched eye, can hold the helm, and direct the course. 
It is amidst the war of the elements that the master spirits rule. 

Mr. Adams was removed from the Congress to other scenes of 
important duty and usefulness. In August, 1779, he was sent to 
Europe as a Commissioner of peace. The public ship, on board 
which he embarked, was commanded by the gallant Commodore 
Tucker, now living, and a citizen of this State, who took more 
guns from the enemy, during the revolutionary war, than any 
other naval commander, and who has been far less known and 
rewarded than his merits deserved. One occurrence on their 
passage is worthy of relation as illustrating the characters of both. 
Discovering an enemy's ship, neither could resist the temptation 
to engage, although against the dictates of prudent duty. Tucker, 
however, stipulated that Mr. Adams should remain in the lower 
part of the ship as a ])l:ice of safety. But no sooner had the bat- 
tle commenced than he was seen on deck, with a musket in his 
hands, fighting as a common maiine. The Commodore pcremto- 



EULOGY OF ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 415 

rily ordered him below, but, called instantly away, it was not 
until considerable time had elapsed that he discovered this public 
minister still at his post, intently engaged in firing upon the 
enemy. Advancing, he exclaimed, Why are you here, sir ? I am 
commanded by the Continental Congress to carry you in safety 
to Europe, and I will do it : and, seizing him in his arms, forcibly 
carried him from the scene of danger, 

Mr, Adams remained in Europe during the remainder of the 
war, and for some time after, and went from court to court 
unceasingly exerting himself for the benefit of his country. He 
succeeded in negotiating a loan at Amsterdam ; and a treaty of 
amity and commerce, and also a convention with the Netherlands, 
both of which were signed in October, 1782. He was engaged 
in negotiating the treaty with Great Britain which terminated the 
war, and his name is subscribed to the provisional articles of 
peace in November, 1782 ; the armistice declaring a cessation of 
hostilities of January, 1783 ; and the definitive treaty of peace of 
September of the same year. He was subsequently Ambassador 
to the Court of St. James, and one of the negotiators of the treaty 
of 1785 with Prussia. 

Mr. Jefferson remained in the United States, continuing his 
efforts for the general good, in the several capacities of Delegate 
to Congress, a Member of the Legislature, and Governor of Vir- 
ginia. In 1784, he was associated with Adams, Franklin, Jay, 
and Laurens, in a plenipotentiary commission to the several pow- 
ers of Europe, and in July, 1785, signed the treaty of amity and 
commerce with Prussia. 

In 1781, Mr, Jefferson composed his Notes on Virginia, and in 
the years 1786 and 1787, Mr. Adams wrote his Defence of the 
American Constitutions. Both are works of great and deserved 
celebrity. 

Under our present federal constitution, INIr. Adams was twice 
elected to the Vice-Presidency, and succeeded General Washington 
in the office of President. 

Mr. Jefferson successively filled the stations of Secretary of 
State, Vice-President, and President of the United States. 

The terms for which they had severally been elected, having 
expired, both retired from the highest offices and greatest honors 
which this, or any country could afford, to the retreats of private 
life ; in which they were exemplars of purity, hospitality and 



41() EULOGY OX ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 

usefulness, — Mr. JefFeison, at Monticello, devoting his time to 
the University of Virginia ; and Mr. Adams, at Quincy, holding 
up the lamp of his experience for the guidance of others. 

Mr. Adams was of an ardent temperament. His intellect was 
marked with great fervor and great strength ; sometimes rapid, 
almost to precipitancy, yet immovably fixed in its purposes. Of 
untiring industry, and unyielding perseverance, he was character- 
ized by active moral courage. Scenes where others were appalled 
but nerved him to greater energy. 

Mr. Jefferson was constitutionally calm, circumspect and philo- 
sojihical. His views were clear and comprehensive. He inves- 
tigated closely, and reflected much before he proceeded to action, 
and, having marked out his course with extensive knowledge and 
deep thought, advanced in it with undeviating step. 

The minds of both seized their subjects with a giant's power; 
but one seemed to embrace the most, and the other to grasp the 
closest. They were both learned ; but yielded to no dogmas, 
and were trammelled by no systems. Enriched by the spoils of 
ages, they did not bend beneath the weight of their own wealth ; 
but it increased their inborn independence ; they stood more 
firmly erect, and fearlessly surveyed the heavens and the earth. 
Wherever Truth would lead, they dared to follow : and they 
cared not if they shook the world with their opinions, if they but 
scattered the clouds, and let in light upon the mind. 

I propose not to dwell upon that period of their lives when 
they were at the head of contending parties. I would not, on 
this day, strike a single chord that may not be attuned to har- 
mony. In the awful silence of tlie tomb, passion is hushed, and 
its fires burn not amid the damps of death. Whatever we may 
think of the correctness of their respective opinions, or the policy 
of their measures, we may at least accord to each of them honesty 
and singleness of intention. In this, we shall but follow their own 
example, who in later life have borne willing testimony to the 
merits of each other — Adams proclaiming the services of Jefferson, 
and Jefferson asserting that Adams was emphatically the great 
man of the Congress Avhich declared our Independence. While 
we lament their temporary alienation, we have the consolation to 
know that personal friendship, and harmony of political views, 
were fully restored long before the close of life. It was grateful, 
it was ennobling, to see those great and good men, whose hearts, 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 41-/ 

in early time, had been bound and knit together, but who, for a 
while, had been estranged from each other, again unite in the cor- 
dial embrace, and the strong sympathy, which death itself was not 
to sunder, but in Avhich, they were to pass together to another 
world. The streams of their lives were united near their sources, 
and, joined in one current, had forced their way through mounds 
of earth, and swept over appalling barriers — but, at length, divi- 
ded in their course, by a rough island of rock, they rushed by its 
opposing sides with turbulent and emulous rapidity — until, at last, 
their waters were commingled in peace, and flowed on, tranquil 
and majestic, into the ocean of eternity. 

We contemplate their departure without any thing of the bit- 
terness of despair, and with little even of the poignancy of grief, 
but with a soothing sadness and a melancholy pleasure. We 
mourn indeed ; but it is with the feelings in Avhich we view the 
closing of the year, when nature herself is falling to decay, and 
seems to be putting on the shroud of death. We must be sol- 
emn ; for it is a memento, which comes home to our own hearts, 
and tells us, that, however bright the tide or proud the waves on 
which we ride, they bear us swiftly to silence and night. 

"They had lived to reap the richest of earthly rewards in the 
abundant success of all their labors. They had seen the institutions, 
which they had established, survive the violence of internal excite- 
ment, and the shock of foreign war ; and bur country rich, power- 
ful and populous, beyond what the most glowing visions of their 
youth had dared to depict. They had seen the expansion of the 
soul, when the pressure of bigotry and tyranny was removed ; and 
the free spirit go forth in its majesty — penetrating the dark 
recesses of Spanish oppression in the South ; and invading the 
strongholds of Turkish despotism in the East ; and iron thrones 
melting before that fire whose early flame their breath had fimned. 
They had lived to become the Patriarchs of America, and saw 
their children in the land of promise ; and one of them beheld the 
destinies of this far-extended and enlightened people, safely repos- 
ing in the hands of his own Patriot Son, preeminent for wisdom 
and virtue. The men of other days — their companions and their 
friends, had passed away ; and new generations had risen up to 
call them blessed. Their labors were finished — the number of 
their days was full — they had lived enough for themselves, for 
their country, and mankind. It only remained to them, that their 
27 



418 ELUOGY OX ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 

last prayer should be answered in the wonderful, Me may almost 
be permitted to say, the miraculous, concidences of their departure, 
which have given new interest to a day, which was before above 
all davs of political celebration. They passed indeed through the 
vallevof the shadow of death, but it was lighted up by the bright- 
ness of their own day of Jubilee — their spirits arose upon the 
songs of joy, and the prayers of gratitude of millions, Avhom they 
had made free — and had the prophet lent his " chariot of fire," 
and his " horses of fire," their ascent could hardly have been 
more glorious ! 

It remains to us to cherish their memory, and em\ilate their 
virtues, by perpetuating and extending the blessings which they 
have becjueathed. So long as we preserve our country, their fame 
cannot die, for it is reflected from the surface of every thing that is 
beautiful and valuable in oui- land. We cannot recur too often, 
nor dwell too long, upon the lives and characters of such men ; for 
our own will take something of their form and impression from 
those on which they rest. If we inhale the moral atmosphere in 
which they moved, we must feel its purifying and invigorating 
influence. If we raise our thoughts to their elevation, our minds 
will be expanded and ennobled, in beholding the immeasurable 
distance beneath, and around us. " Can we breathe the pure 
mountain air, and not be refreshed ? Can we walk abroad amidst 
the beautiful and the grand of the Avorks of creation, and feel no 
kindUng of devotion ? " 

Our country has been sometimes reiiroached for not erecting 
monuments and statues to hci- departed Avorthics. 13ut what 
avails the monument of brass and stone ? Sink its foundation 
deep ; raise it as high as human ken ; when the rolling years 
press on — it falls — they sweep over it, and leave not a trace of its 
gloomy grandeur. Erect the statue of marble ; it is cold and life- 
less. Time clasps it, and it becomes dust in his hands. But the 
patriot-statesmen and i)liilanthr()pit.ts, like those whom we this day 
commemorate, who have been the instruments of Providence in 
adding to the numbers and happiness of the human race ; who 
have peopled and gladdened new legion.s — their memorials are 
everywhere! 'Vhc'ir sf (it iics are man ; living, feeling intelligent, 
adoring man ; bearing the image of his Maker ; having the 
impress of divinity. These ^hall endure, by constant succession, 
through countless ages, and, \ igorous in the embrace of Time, 



EULOGY ON ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 419 

become more and more abundant. Their monuments zxe the ever- 
lasting hills which they have clothed with verdure. Their praises 
are sounds of health and joy, in valleys which they have made 
fruitful. To them incense daily rises, in the perfumes of fragrant 
fields, which they have spread with cultivation. Fair cities pro- 
claim their glory ; gorgeous mansions speak their munificence. 
Their names are inscribed on the goodly habitations of men ; and 
on those hallowed temples of God, whose spires ever point to the 
heaven which, we trust, has received them. 



WASHINGTON'S CENTENNIAL BIRTH- 
DAY. 



CENTENNIAL BIRTHDAY OF WASHINGTON. 



The Twenty-Second of February, A. D., 1832, was the Centeiinial 
Birthday of George Washington. It was celebrated at the City of 
Washington, by a Public Dinner, attended by a large number of Mem- 
bers of Coigress, of both Houses, and other gentlemen from various 
parts of the United States. Mr. Webster presided After the cloth had 
been removed, and some other gentlemen had addressed the Company, Mr. 
Sprague, being called upon by the President, spoke as follows. 



REMARKS 



CENTENNIA]^ CELEBRATION OF WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY, 
FEBRUARY 22, 1832. 



Mr. Sprague said : It might be supposed that a subject which 
has attracted the attention and elicited remarks from such gentle- 
men as those who have already addressed us must be entirely 
exhausted ; and so, indeed, it would, were it one of ordinary 
import. But the memory of Washington is a mine of moral and 
intellectual wealth of such richness and extent as can never be 
exhausted, however numerous and efficient the laborers. 

In contemplating his character, as a subject of eulogium, the 
mind is overwhelmed with a conscious inability to fathom and 
embrace it. Indeed, it would require powers approximating to 
those of the great original himself fully to comprehend and appre- 
ciate it. 

In attempting to select some peculiar and distinguishing endow- 
ment for admiration and remark, we find that all the qualities of 
greatness and goodness are so fully and equally blended as to 
produce an almost invincible repugnance to the omission of any. 

In other preeminent men, a single, rare, and wonderful gift of 
nature, some peculiar development of genius, some one great, 
characterizing power has stood out prominent and alone ; fixing 
the attention, and challenging the wonder, of the beholder. 



426 AVASIIIXGTOX'S CENTENNIAL BIRTHDAY. 

But, in liim, it is the combined whole that constitutes the unpar- 
alleled perfection of character, — concentrating " the purest and 
best of all other men's powers," — the genius, order, energy, and 
daring of the hero, controlled and directed bj" the judgment of the 
philosopher, and the wisdom of the sage, — chastened and purified 
by the disinterestedness of the patriot, and the piety of the Chris- 
tian. 

This symmetry as a whole, this perfection of character in all its 
parts, has produced, upon the minds of the unreflecting^ a less 
impression of greatness and strength thaii would the defects of 
irregularity and wildness, as the more perfect the proportions of a 
mighty edifice, the less the impression of its vastfess upon the 
casual and transient beholder. 

But, if I were called ujjon to designate some one scene as more 
characteristic and glorious than any other, it would not be Wash- 
ington, as commander-in-chief of our armies ; even when, on the 
banks of the Delaware, with three thousand ill fed, ill clad, conti- 
nental soldiers, he held in check thirty thousand well appointed Brit- 
ish veterans. It Avould not be Washington as the first chief magis- 
trate of this new-created republic, preeminent in the midst of those 
great names which clustered around him ; but it would be that 
spectacle of unequalled moral sublimity, Avhen, at the close of a 
revolution of violence, protracted and bloody, he, the successful 
general, the triumphant warrior of that revolution, with an army, 
needy, destitute, enthusiastically devoted to him, with a country 
exhausted and prostrate before him, voluntarily disbanded that 
army, and laid down his power. It was then, when divesting 
himself of what, in the vulgar vocabulary of the world, is called 
greatness, he was, in the eye of the patriot, the philosopher, the 
philanthropist, most truly great. Others have ascended the heights 
of human power, and, their feeble brain becoming giddy by the 
unnatural elevation, has precipitated them headlong into the abyss 
beneath. But the original exaltation of his mind ranged in a far 
higher sphere, and he could look down with calmness, self-col- 
lected, self-controlled, and descend with ease, dignity, and secur- 
ity. 

We have heard of other Washingtons ; for there have been 
sycophants who could impiously attempt to write his sacred name 
upon the front of their wretched and transient idols. 

It was said by Bonaparte, that he was once expected to become 



WASHINGTON'S CENTENNIAL BIRTHDAY. 427 

the Washington of France, but that it was not in his power. No, 
even Napoleon, at whose name kings and princes trembled, in 
whose path thrones and empires were trodden to the dust, even 
he could not be a Washington. And there never has been 
another mortal man, who, without the aid of divine inspiration, 
could be a Washington. Bolivar, too, in his day, was called 
the Washington of Colombia ! He is gone. Peace to his 
ashes ! But it was well said, at the time, that we would not give 
our dead Washington for all the living Bolivars that the world 
could boast. And I will now say, that I would not give one of 
those bones, that now repose in the hallowed shades of Mount 
Vernon, for the v/hole muster roll of rank and file heroes that 
crowd the crimsoned records of history. 

Who shall estimate the influence of his life upon the destinies 
of the human race ? Cast your recollectiou backward one cent- 
ury, to the day we now commemorate. Contemplate the politi- 
cal thraldom of the world. Mark the march of freedom and of 
intellect to the present time. Carry your imagination forward 
one century hence, and dwell for a moment upon the beatific vis- 
ions of the future, and then say what the world owes to the birth- 
day of Washington. 

I am admonished, by the lateness of the hour, not to trust my- 
self further upon this copious, exhaustless theme ; and I will 
detain you only by oflering this sentiment : 

" The Patriot Hero of our Revoiution, the Christian Statesman of our 
RepubHc,* great in goodness, and good in greatness." 



WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 



WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 



The Fourth of July, 1834, was celebrated by a great number of the Whigs 
of Boston by a public dinner, in a large Pavilion, erected for the purpose, 
on the Common. In the afternoon of that day, Mr. Sprague arrived in 
Boston from Washington, a most memorable and exciting session of Con- 
gress having just closed. He was met by a Committee, who at once 
conducted him to the Pavilion. As soon as he had taken his seat, he 
was called up by a Toast from the President, and addressed the company 
as follows. 



REMARKS 



BOSTON WHIG CELEBRATION, JULY 4, 1834. 



Mr. Sprague said, having reached the city within the last 
hour — and, but a moment since, entered the Pavilion, they would 
readily believe that, if be were at liberty to consult his own 
wishes, he should receive the kind expressions of their regard in 
silent gratitude. But, stranger as he was, such a course would be 
too liable to misconstruction. He had said that he was a stranger, 
yet not wholly so, for he felt that he was standing upon his native 
soil, and breathing his native air. From choice the citizen of 
another State, the people of which he was bound by the strong 
ties of affection and gratitude, by powerful local attachments and 
enduring personal friendships — yet he would not willingly be 
deemed to be wholly an alien from the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts ; he would not willingly relinquish his share in the noble 
inheritance of her sons in the beaming pages of her history, in 
the thrilling traditions of our fathers, in the glowing recollections 
of youth, in those early associations when life had all its freshness, 
when the affections were purest, and every impression most deep 
and enduring ; above all, I would not surrender my share in that 
Puritan Pilgrim blood which swells tlie veins and warms the 
hearts of the sons of New England, that blood which, wherever it 
flows, carries (with it) its original unchanging characteristic resis- 
28 



434 WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 

tance to arbitrary power, sustained by a courage that no dangers 
can appal, and a perseverance that no sufferings can subdue. Go 
back more than two centuries, when the sceptre of England was 
stretched forth to crush obnoxious nonconformity, and the humble 
unsupported Puritans alone stood forth in fearless resistance to 
political and ecclesiastical tyranny. Power could drive him from 
his country, but not from the fixedness of his purpose ; he could 
leave his native land, he could not abandon his principles — he 
could bid adieu to luxury, refinement, civilization itself — and, in 
that single ship which bore liim across the Atlantic, how much of 
the hopes and the happiness of the human race were embarked ! 
He approached these shores frowning in primeval forests, tenanted 
only by savage beasts, or more savage man, homeless, houseless, 
canopied only by a December sky — and here laid the deep and 
broad foundations of a Christian Commonwealth. They were not 
mere religious enthusiasts — they were devotees also to republican- 
ism, they bowed in passive obedience to no human monarch, but 
only to the King of kings. From the sacred volume itself they 
learned the native equality of the human race. Created by the 
same hand, formed of the same dust, and destined to the same 
grave. A community thus planted by Britons oppression grew 
up by her neglect until her assertion of absolute unlimited domin- 
ion on this side the ocean, produced that anniversary which you 
this day celebrate. The Whigs of 1776 were worthy descendants 
of the Puritans of 1G20. Massachusetts, the first to dare, was ever 
foremost to maintain the fight. Now in these piping times of 
peace, her political weight may be depreciated, overshadowed by 
the Empire State of New York — the Keystone Pennsylvania, and 
the Old Dominion of Virginia — but then, in the hour of trial and 
of battle, her preeminence in services and sacrifices was felt and 
acknowledged — she then poured out her blood like water, and her 
treasure with the profusion of sunbeams — and let it still be remem- 
bered that, during the whole war of the Revolution, she furnished 
double the number of soldiers, and twice the amount of money 
of any other State — and, let it be remembered too, that while 
every other section of our country was more or less subjected to 
the enemy, while his banner floated in triumph on the l)anks of 
the Hudson, and the Delaware, and beyond the Potomac, while 
the Capitols of several of the States were at times in his possession, 
and others so entirely overrun, that there M-as scarcely a county 



WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 435 

unpolluted by hostile feet, New England, at all times, presented 
on her borders an impregnable barrier in the indomitable spirit of 
her children. Although upon her, the most rebellious and de- 
nounced, was made the first onset while the power of the foe was 
unbroken, and his confidence unchecked, while as yet no foreign 
nation had lent either aid or countenance to strengthen our hands 
or our hearts, yet every attempted invasion was instantly and 
gloriously repelled — and, not content with self-defence, she sent 
her succors everywhere. 

Wherever the war raged, there were her sons to be found, and 
there was scarce a well-fought field in the South, the West, or 
the Centre, which was not wet with their blood, and whitened with 
their bones. With these recollections, I cannot be surprised at 
the enthusiasm, the excitement, which I see around me. You 
would be unworthy of your lineage and your birth-place, if you 
were unmoved at the present crisis — you would be false to your 
country, false to posterity, false to yourselves ; you Avould be deaf 
to the voice of your father's blood, deaf to the demands of your 
children, of whose inheritance you are trustees, deaf to your own 
conscience, if you were not aroused, deeply, intensely aroused, at 
the present march of arbitrary power. Where, in the whole his- 
tory of free government, is to be found so rapid, and so disas- 
trous a practical change, such enormous encroachments of actual 
tyranny under the forms and professions of republicanism as we 
have all seen, and I fear some of you felt, within the last five 
years ? A single executive has in all ages been found most dan- 
gerous to human liberty ; it was admitted into our Constitution 
with apprehension and reluctance, but the People, who adopted it, 
trusted that the President Avas so surrounded, limited, and restrained 
by the barriers of the great co-ordinate branches, that there would 
never be an accumulation of jDower in the hands of one man. 
Heretofore, our Chief Magistrates have scrupulously respected the 
specification of their power — they have not only anxiously kept 
themselves within their legitimate sphere, but exercised their 
authority with moderation, leaving the responsibility of everything 
which could with propriety be devolved upon the Legislature and 
the Judiciary. But, within five years past, we have been afflicted 
with a President disposed to call into rigorous exercise, and stretch 
to the utmost limit, every power within the letter, or the spirit of 
the Constitution, who has been even eager to say, " I take the res- 



436 WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 

ponsibilifi/,^' nay, who lias been ready to transcend the limits of 
the fundamental charter itself, making his own will the only meas- 
ure of his power — and, whenever statutes, or treaties, or the 
Constitution stood in his way, they were to be struck down and 
trampled wpon with the exulting exclamation, " / take the respon- 
sih'ditij." The Whigs of ' 75 lived under a Government whose 
theory was, that all the privileges of the people were derived by 
concessions ffom the Crown — and yet out fathers rose in resist- 
ance to their King, because of his violations of their constitu- 
tional rights. The theory of our Republic is, that all powers of 
Government are deiived by concessions from the People, and shall 
not they set bounds to a President ? Our fathers resisted the 
King, the Whigs of '76 waged the war of the revolution, 
because he asserted the right to take their money without allow- 
ing them a representation in Parliament. Your Republican Pres- 
ident asserts the right, ay, and exerts it too, of taking possession 
of your money in spite of your representation (in Congress.) 
They set forth, in the Declaration of IndjDcndence, that the King 
sent hither swarms of officers to eat out their substance ; the Pres- 
ident does not indeed send them from abroad, but enters your 
own dwelling, seducing your brothers and sons to be his officers, 
his instruments, bribing them by spoils from your Treasury into 
allegiance to him, and treachery to you. 

The whigs of '76 were proscribed by the king, and the Han- 
cocks and Adamses of that day were individually marked out by 
royal denunciation. You now are under the executive ban, and 
you have done the humble individual who addresses you too much 
honor in recognizing him as one of the proscribed Senators, the 
individual objects of presidential denunciation. I have, indeed, 
been the object of Proscription, because I would not surrender 
my solemn convictions of duty and honor in abject submission to 
the arbitrary will of one man. Yes, I have stood up against pres- 
idential encroachments, and when the path to executive favor, and 
its proffered and glittering rewards were too plain to be mistaken, 
I have provoked its wrath by resisting its assumptions, I have 
done so without that external aid to which a public man ever 
looks with earnest solicitude. I felt that the trust reposed in my 
hands was not for the present day only, but for future genera- 
tions, and my support Avas my own conscious rectitude. I am 
profoundly sensible of mj" obligations to the people of Maine. I 



WHIG CELEBRATION AT BOSTON. 437 

owe a debt of gratitude not to be discharged by consulting the 
temporary wishes of their Legishiture, or the prejudices of the 
people themselves ; but by the exercise of my best judgment for 
their permanent welfare. The intelligent and the honest will 
vindicate both my motives and my conduct. In being proscribed, 
I am not singular. This administration commenced with an 
unrelenting system of proscription which swept in terror over the 
land, prostrating the best officers, the most upright men, the most 
devoted patriots, and this has been called Eeform, a w^ord which 
has changed its meaning since Jackson inscribed it upon his ban- 
ner. It once meant the correction of abuses, now the introduc- 
tion of them. It was once the removal of bad officers, now the 
expulsion of the good. It would be vain to attempt, on this 
festive occasion, even an allusion to all the prominent executive 
abuses. I would willingly say something of that unprecedented 
document which claims the officers of the law to be but the agents 
and instruments of a man arrogating to the same hand the inde- 
feasible possession of all public money and all public property 
beyond the control and in defiance of the will of Congress. But I 
forbear. I may not enlarge upon these exciting and exhaustless 
topics. I would not alarm you. I will not enter upon a discus- 
sion which would threaten you with a congressional speech, which 
too often seems interminable, in which the condition of the hearer 
may be well illustrated by that of the sailor who undertook to over- 
haul a long rope, and, after haukng until his patience was wholly 
exhausted, finding no end, exclaimed in despair, " Some rascal has 
cut off the end of this rope." That my speech may not be sub- 
jected to such a suspicion, I will close at once by offering you a 
sentiment. 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 



ABOLITION PARTY IN 1835. 



In August, 1835, the ultra Abolition party in Massachusetts was in its 
infancy. But its dangerous anl revolutionary character had already 
attracted public attention. Many of the friends of the Constitution and 
of social order in Boston, wished to give public expression to their disap- 
probation of the doctrines and doings of this new and violent party, and 
to do something to make its true character universally known. To this 
end they called a public meeting at Faneuil Hall. It was very numer- 
ously attended, without distinction of political party. A Committee of 
those who had called the meeting waited on Mr. Sprague, and requested 
him to make an Address upon the occasion. The following Speech was 
made in compliance with this request. Speeches were also made by the 
Hon. Harrison Gray Otis and the Hon. Bichard Fletcher. 



SPEECH 

DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING, IN FANEUIL HALL, IN 
AUGUST, 1835, IN RELATION TO THE THEN ABOLITION 
PARTY IN MASSACHUSETTS. 



Mr. Sprague regarded slavery as a great moral and political 
evil. He had been early imbued with this sentiment, and all that 
he had seen, and all that he had heard, had strengthened and 
deepened the conviction. He deeply deplored its existence, and, 
from the very core and centre of his heart, he prayed that our 
brethren of the South might see their own way clear, by their own 
free will, to effect its entire abolition. But it rested with them, 
and with them only. He could see no good, he saw only 
unmixed mischief, consequent upon agitating the subject here. 
What if the whole North could be excited and aroused with the 
same feelings and opinions, and to the same efforts and action as 
the leading abolitionists, producing, throughout the whole South, 
united to a man upon this subject, a corresponding and hostile excite- 
ment and exasperation ? What would be the benefit ? The enor- 
mous evils are palpable, but how would it benefit even the unfor- 
tunate slave? By operating upon the fears of the master? And 
when did fear ever induce a man to relax his power over the object 
that excited it ? No, he will hold him down with a stronger grasp; 
he will draw the cords tighter ; he will make the chains heavier ; 
and sink his victim to a still deeper dungeon. Fear steels the heart 
against all touches of humanity. Would he be benefited by arous- 
ing him to physical resistance, to insurrection ? For, whatever be 



444 SPE'.'Cil OX AiJOLlTlOX. 

their motives, and I by no means intend to arraign them, the hm- 
guage and measures of the abolitionists clearly tend to insurrection 
and violence. Believe not, sir, that their proceedings are kept, or 
can be kept, from the knowledge of the slaves ; they have ears, and 
will hear ; they have eyes, and will see. Information upon such sub- 
jects, received through free blacks and other sources, is sought with 
avidity and circulated with activity, inflaming their minds and 
imaginations with the most false and fatal hopes. They hear that 
their masters have no legal or moral authority over them, that 
every moment's exercise of such dominion is sin, and that all 
.laws that sanction it, are morally void ; that they are entitled to 
immediate emancipation, and that their masters are to be legarded 
as kidnappers and robbers for refusing it. They think that this 
is the general sentiment and feeling of the North, and that we 
shall cheer them on and aid them in putting an end i>.t once to 
this void and sinful dominion. It is deluding these unfortunate 
beings to their own destruction. AVe should not aid them. The 
Constitution provides for the suppressing of insurrections. We 
should rally under the Constitution; we should respond to its call ; 
nay, we should not Avait for such a requisition, but on the instant 
should rush forward with fraternal emotions to defend our breth- 
ren from desolation and massacre. But, even if we stood aloof, 
can any rational man believe that an insurrection of the slaves 
could result in ultimate success ? In some of the West India 
Islands, while the black population was eight times that of the 
whites, still the latter kept their supremacy by their intelligence, 
science, and unity of action. But, in the aggregate South, the 
number of the whites exceeds that of the slaves, and the result of 
a servile war there must be, after the destruction of thousands 
and thousands of blacks, the holding the survivors in a sterner 
and more enduring bondage. 

But there is another and far more important view of this mat- 
ter — the effect upon the whites, upon the Constitution, and the 
Union. 

The combinations and proceedings of the immediate abolition- 
ists have produced and are producing throughout the South 
feelings of bitterness and hatred toward the North I am aware 
that some of these gentlemen insist that all their cffjrts are 
designed merely to produce a persuasive effect on the masters. 
Sir, if such be really \\\v\v object — if they intend only persuasion, 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 445 

the course they adopt, the pouring forth the most insulting and 
opprobrious language, even to the pronouncing of all slaveholders 
indiscriminately to be robbers and murderers, and thus arousing 
the most indignant and embittered feelings, exhibits the most sin- 
gular ideas of the adaptation of means to ends that ever were pre- 
sented in the varieties of the human intellect. I have heard of 
persons vrho had "a thousand winning ways to make folks hate 
them," and surely the abolitionists have employed them all tow- 
ard the South, and with wonderful success. 

Sir, said Mr. Sprague, the time has come when the great body 
of the people, hitherto silent upon this delicate and momentous 
subject, should come forward and express their sentiments ! Our 
brethren of the South are alarmed, deeply, profoundly. Nor 
ought we to be surprised that they are so. We know, indeed, 
that the agitators here are few, that even the whole number of 
those who have permitted their names to be enrolled in these soci- 
eties is small, and I verily believe that many of them disapprove 
the violence of their leaders, and that more will do so when they 
contemplate the consequences of their measures. But, seen 
from a distance, they appear to occupy the whole field, and their 
incessant activity produces an erroneous impression of their 
strength and numbers. 

And, sir, there are agitators on the other side of the Potomac, 
us well as on this ; men who, from personal or political views, 
are willing to fan the flame of discord ; there are those who wish 
a dissolution of the Union, and who, with that view, designedly 
lay hold of this topic, exaggerating the danger, and deepening the 
alarm. These men, we can never satisfy, because they are prede- 
termined not to be satisfied with any measures which we can 
adopt. But the great body of the people of the South are 
strongly attached to this Union, and can be alienated from it only 
by a conviction that we of the North mean deliberately to disre- 
gard and violate the Constitution in a matter afiecting their vital 
interests. 

It is most solemnly incumbent upon us, then, to make our ojDiu- 
ions and determinations known. Before the adoption of the Con- 
stitution, the several States possessed no right whatever to inter- 
fere with the domestic institutions of each other, no more than 
we now have to go into Canada or Nova Scotia to break up the 
relation of officer and soldier in their regiments, stimulating the 



446 SPEECH ox ABOLITION. 

latter to mutiny. The Constitution gives no such right, but, on 
the contrary, interposes the obligations of compact against all such 
interference. It recognizes and provides for the continuance of 
the relation of master and slave ; it further provides for the sup- 
pression of insurrections ; and it surely requires no argument to 
show that we have no right to foment what Ave are bound to sup- 
press. By tlie ti ue spirit of that compact we are bound to leave 
to each State its own internal arrangements — to leave it in the 
quiet enjoyment of all the rights of independent sovereignty 
which it has not thereby conceded to the General Government. 

Let us convince the South, that, by this compact, we mean most 
scrupulously to abide ; that we go for the whole Constitution ; 
that in our view all its parts are equally sacred ; that ours is no 
sectional, or partial, or transient attachment ; that we as resolutely 
maintain whatever looks to their protection and their benefit, as 
that which secures our own ; that we would no moi"e add to, 
than we would subtract from, the legitimate powers of the Consti- 
tution ; and that we should hold it as treason to the Union to take 
one jot or tittle from the reserved and peculiar rights of the 
States. 

Every one who knows any thing of the history of the Constitu- 
tion, knows that it could never have been formed, — that the 
Southern States would never have acceded to it for an instant, if 
it had not left to them the exclusive and unmolested treatment of 
this terrible disease, this vital subject, — their own domestic slav- 
ery ; and it cannot be preserved a day after they shall be brought 
to believe that there is, in this respect, a settled purpose here to 
disregard or go beyond the compact. 

The South Mill not tolerate our inter fcicnce with their slaves. 
This we may be assured ; this, let every man, reflecting or unre- 
flecting, set down as a truth certain as a mathematical demonstra- 
tion. All our history shows it ; the excitement of the present 
moment shows it ; they cannot permit such interference — their 
very condition forbids it. Attached as they are to the Union, 
important as it is to them, and certainly it is not less essential to 
them than to us, still they will hold it as nothing in comparison 
with that which immediately touches their lives — their individual 
existence. The Union then, if used to disturb this institution of 
slavery, will be there as the " spider's web ; a breath will agitate, a 
blast will sweep it away forever." 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 447 

If, then, these abolitionists shall go on, if their associations shall 
continue to increase, if their doctrines shall spread and their 
measures be adopted, until they become the general sentiment and 
action of a majority of the people of the North, and this shall be 
known, as known it will be at the South, the fate of our Govern- 
ment is sealed — the day that sees that consummation will look only 
upon the broken fragments of our Union. And who will attempt 
to fathom the immeasurable abyss of a dissolution of the Union ? 
Draw the lines of the new confederacies where you will — war — 
bitter and almost incessant war — will be the inevitable consequence. 
All history, and human nature itself, teach us this. Think not 
that our former connexion and fraternity would tend to prevent or 
ameliorate it. They M'ould but impart new exasperation. As in 
the natural world the sweetest substances when corrupted often 
become the most acrid, so, in the moral world, the kindly affections 
when poisoned or perverted, are turned to intense and deadly hate. 
Each party must at all times be in full armor, in complete prep- 
aration for defence. There must be standing armies, and fortifica- 
tions, and garrisons, along the whole dividing line. During hos- 
tilities, the fears and hopes of the people would be engrossed upon 
the successful prosecution of the war. For this, they would be 
wrought upon to make any sacrifice. For self-preservation, or 
from inflamed passions for revenge or conquest, they would per- 
mit the concentration of more and more power in the hands of a 
single Executive, until, although the forms and name of a Eepub- 
lic might perhaps remain, the substance Avould be gone forever, 
and the people would groan under the withering curse of a mili- 
tary despotism. 

Tell the abolitionists this ; present to them in full array the ter- 
rific consequences of their attempts at immediate emancipation, and 
they meet all by a cold abstraction. They answer. We must do 
right, regardless of consequences. As if, in human action, prac- 
tically affecting individuals and communities, effects and conse- 
quences were to be of no account in forming a judgment of what is 
right. As if they were not indispensable elements in the forma- 
tion of correct views of right and duty. They assume that such a 
course is right, when that is the very point in controversy, and 
when inevitable consequences demonstrate that it must be wrong. 
It is a fallacy ■which they themselves discard when its application 
comes nearer home. They insist that it is right that they should 



448 SPEECH 0\ AliOLlTIOX. 

urge thcii- tloctrincs for the conviction of the South. Ask them 
why they do not go and preach them there, where they most 
desire to make converts. They reply, AV'hy, we shouhl be in 
danger of our lives ! Then they begin to think of conseciucnces. 
So that the practical result of that proposition, Avhich sounds so 
well in the abstract, is, that they are to go on regardless of conse- 
quences to others, but not without a due regard for themselves. 

They insist upon immediate, instantaneous emancipation, llep- 
resent to them the present ignorance of the slaves, understanding 
neither the lights nor the duties of freemen, and that possessing 
all the violent passions of men, but without moral or intellectual 
discipline, if they should be loosed at once from all restraint, it 
would bring misery and destruction alike upon themselves and 
others — the reply is in general propositions. Xo man, say they, 
can be rightfully restrained of his libeity except for crime. The 
commencement of slavery, the original depriving of the blacks of 
their liberty, was theft, and robbery, and sin, and therefore every 
continuation of it, however changed the circumstances, is theft, 
and robbery, and sin, and that all sin should be immediately aban- 
doned. Now, sir, to meet these propositions, insisted upon as 
universal moral truths fiom which there can be no exception, let 
me put a case not altogether imaginary — let me suppose that a 
free man, a good citizen, in the full possession of his f iculties, is 
kidnapped, represented as a lunatic for the purpose of depriv- 
ing him of the control of his property, and kept in confinement 
in a private mad-house, until, from the horrors of his situation, 
his mind is really alienated, reason is driven from her throne, and 
he actually becomes a furious madman, — would you release him 
then? Why not .MIe has commited no crime ; he has only suf- 
fered excruciating agony, bodily and mental, by the crimes of 
others. The original restraint upon his liberty was sin. Why not 
then, every continuation of it, and why not leave sinning instantly 
by setting him at large ? The answer is obvious : he is not in a 
condition to be liberated ; he would do mischief to himself and 
others. And so of tlie slaves ; if they are not in a mental condi- 
tion to receive unrestrained freedom ; if tliey would do mis- 
chief to themselves and others, the safety of society, humanity 
itself, demands that they should not at once be loosed from all 
restraint. 

J5y thus insistin!; that the continuance of slavery under any 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 449 

circumstances is necessarily of the same moral character as its 
original voluntary introduction, that it is equally criminal, they 
come to the conclusion that no laws that sanction or uphold it can . 
have any moral obligation. The Constitution is the supreme law 
of the land. It does sanction slavery ; and, if this doctrine be 
true, that sacred compact has always been morally null and void. 
Not only do they thus absolve the consciences of all good men 
from the support of the Constitution, but the tendency is to alien- 
ate them from it, to diminish their attachment to the Union as one 
that ought never to have been formed. Their arguments and 
language further tend to dissolve the bonds of union by weaken- 
ing our regard for our Southern brethren, nay, by creating towards 
them feelings of detestation and abhorrence, as men daily guiltv of 
enormous iniquity, as thieves and robbers, and with whom of course 
we should hold no communion. 

Time was when such sentiments and such language would not 
have been breathed in this community. And here, on this hal- 
lowed spot, of all the places on earth, should they be met and 
rebuked. Time was, when the British Parliament having declared 
that " they had a right to bind us in all cases whatsoever," and 
were attempting to bind our infant giant limbs in letters, when a 
voice of resistance and notes of defiance had gone forth from this 
hall, then, when JNIassachusetts, standing for her liberty and her 
life, was alone breasting the whole power of Britain — the gener- 
ous and gallant Southrons came to our aid, and our fathers refused 
not to hold communion with slaveholders. When the blood of 
our citizens, shed by a British soldiery, had stained our streets, 
had flowed upon the heights which surround us, and sunk into 
the earth upon the plains of Lexington and Concord, then, when 
He — whose name can never be pronounced by American lips 
without the strongest emotions of gratitude and love in every 
American heart — when He, that slaveholder, (pointing to a full- 
length portrait of Washington,) who, from this canvass, smiles 
upon you, his children, with paternal benignity, came with other 
slaveholders to drive the British myrmidons from this city and 
this hall, our fathers did not refuse to hold communion with him, 
or with them. 

With slaveholders they formed the Confederation, neither ask- 
ing, nor receiving any right to interfere in their domestic relations ; 
with them they made the Declaration of Independence, coming 

29 



450 SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 

from the pen of that other slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson, a name 
dear to every friend to human rights. And, in the original draft 
of that declaration was contained a most eloquent passage upon 
this very topic of negro slavery, which was stricken out in defer- 
ence to the wishes of members from the South. "With slavehold- 
ers, shoulder to shoulder, our fathers went through the Kevolu- 
tion, mingling their blood in every battle-field, laying their bones 
together upon every State from ^lassachusetts to Georgia ; and 
when, by the blessing of Heaven, (for Heaven did bless them not- 
withstanding such communion,) they had achieved their independ- 
ence and successfully terminated the war, they together formed 
this solemn compact, the Constitution under which we live. This 
was the consummation of all their labors, the fruit of all their sac- 
rifices and suffering. It comes down to us, sealed by the death, 
and sanctified by the plighted fiith, of our fathers ; and we will 
abide by it, to the letter and the spirit, in all its parts ; demand- 
ing for ourselves the benefits which it secures to us, and giving to 
the full to others the benefits and protection which it contemplates 
for them. Slavery existed then as now ; there is no pretence that 
it has assumed any more aggravated form, or that the provisions 
in relation to it were inserted by accident or inadvertence. Few 
parts of the Constitution were more carefully and deliberately 
weighed. Nor did it arise from any indifference to the tremen- 
dous evils of this institution. Our fathers were not less devoted 
friends of liberty, not less pure as philanthropists, or pious as 
Christians, than any of their children of the present day. They 
did what they could, rightfully and peaceably. At the first prac- 
ticable moment, by the very adoption of the frame of Government 
in Massachusetts in 1780, slavery was abolished throughout this 
State. In 1787, the Continental Congress adopted the celebrated 
ordinance by which involuntary servitude was forever excluded 
from the territory north-west of the Ohio, and which has given 
us the free States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. By the Con- 
stitution they obtained the right to prevent any State from carry- 
ing on the slave trade after the year 1808, and at the earliest 
moment they prohibited that nefarious traffic, denouncing against 
it the penalties of piracy. 

Sir, these doctrines and that language to which I have felt it 
my duty to advert, tending, as they do, to the disruption of the 
Union, the prostration of Government, and to all the horrors of a 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 451 

civil and servile war, have attained their greatest prevalence and 
intensity "within the past year, since a certain notorious foreign 
agent first landed upon our shores ; who comes here, not to unite 
his fate with ours, not as other foreigners who would make this 
their home, and whom we cordially receive to the participation of 
all the immeasurable blessings of free institutions ; but he comes 
here as an avowed emissary, sustained by foreign funds, a jiro- 
fessed agitator upon questions deeply, profoundly jyolitical, which 
lay at the very foundation of our Union, and in which the very 
existence of this nation is involved. He comes here, from the 
dark and corrupt institutions of Europe, to enlighten us upon the 
rights of man, and the moral duties of our own condition. 
Received by our hospitality, he stands here upon our soil, pro- 
tected by our laws, and hurls " fire-brands, arrows and death," 
into the habitations of our neighbors, and friends, and brothers, — 
and when he shall have kindled a conflagration which is sweep- 
ing in desolation over the land, he has only to embark for his own 
country, and there look securely back with indifference or exulta- 
tion upon the wide-spread ruin by which oiir cities are wrapt in 
flames, and our garments rolled in blood. This is our country — 
the country of our children, and our children's children. We 
can never separate from it. Its fate must be our fate. If the 
storm comes, we must abide its pelting ; if convulsions come, we 
must be in the midst of them. To 2is, then, it belongs, to judge of 
the exigencies of our own condition, to provide for our own safety, 
and perform our own duties, without the audacious interference of 
foreign emissaries. If he have really the philanthropy which he 
professes, and would remove evils by doctrines and language, in 
their nature revolutionary, which touch the very existence of estab- 
lished government, let him go back to Europe, and there, at his 
own home, undertake to redress the wrongs of India, to stay the 
oppression of Ireland, to relieve England from tithes and taxa- 
tion, to the prostrating of the triple power of the priesthood, the 
aristocracy, and the throne, — and he would perhaps receive in 
his own person a practical lesson of the degree of liberty there 
enjoyed. 

With our own fellow citizens, who have united in these associ- 
ations, those who are indeed of us, and with us, and embarked 
together in the same ship, I would most affectionately commune 
and earnestly reason. Among them I see the names of men in 



452 SPEECH OX ABOLITION. 

whose puritv and piety I have the utmost confidence, and I doubt 
not there are many others equally entitled to regard. I would 
beseech them to discard those dangerous abstractions which they 
adopt as universal rules of human conduct, without regard to 
time, condition, or circumstances, which darken the understanding 
and mislead the judgment, and urge them forward to conse- 
quences from which they will shrink back in horror. I would 
ask them to reflect that humanity and benevolence are not to be 
promoted by measures of insurrection and massacre ; that the 
religion they profess is not to be advanced by forgetting the pre- 
cepts and the example of their Divine Master. Upon that exam- 
ple I woidd ask them to pause. He found slavery, Roman slav- 
ery, an institution of the country in which he lived. Did he 
denounce it ? Did he attempt its immediate abolition ? Did he 
do any thing or say any thing which could, in its remotest ten- 
dency, encourage resistence and violence ? No, his precept was, 
" Servants, (slaves,) obey your masters." And one of his imme- 
diate apostles sent back the runaway slave, Oiics'nnus, to his mas- 
ter Philemon, with an affectionate epistle. Not that the Savior 
of the world approved of slavery any more than he did the crime 
of the woman, who, taken in the very act, was brought before 
him, and whom he declared that he did not condemn, but told 
her to go and sin no moie. It was because he would not inter- 
fere with the administration of the laws, or abrogate their authority. 
He did not attempt the immediate removal of any civil institutions 
of the country, however unjust and oppressive, but sought only to 
lay down precepts, and establish a religion, which, as it extended and 
strengthened, should, by its beneficent influences, ultimately, but 
gradually, quietly and peaceably remove them all. So let it be 
with us. Let it be our work, humbly and fervently, to endeavor 
to maintain our free institutions, Avitli the strong assurance that, if 
these are sustained, they will in due time produce by mild and 
moral means their natural effects of universal liberty. I would 
beseech these gentlemen to reflect Avhether the great cause of 
human liberty is to be advanced by putting in jeopardy our Gov- 
i-rnment and our Union, under which we have prospered as no 
people has ever before prospered, and which is shedding upon the 
nations of the earth a light which no political- luminary has ever 
before shed. What though there are abodes of darkness which it 
has not yet illuminated ? What though there are fetters on 



SPEECH ON ABOLITION. 453 

human limbs which its sweet influences have not yet dissolved ? 
Would you therefore destroy it ? Would you blot out the sun 
because it has not yet melted the polar ices, and covered the whole 
earth with verdure ? Would you banish Christianity itself because 
it has not yet produced its perfect work of universal peace, benev- 
olence and joy ? 



HARYARD CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION. 



CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF HARVARD 
UNIVERSITY. 



Two centuries from the foundation of Harvard College ended on the 
eighth day of September, 1836. The event was celebrated by the Alumni, 
and Officers of the University, in a manner worthy of the occasion. Such 
previous notice had been given, as to enable Graduates to attend from 
the most distant parts of our country, and they came in great numbers. 
It was a most memorable re-union of College friends. For the dinner, a 
tent was erected within the College grounds, large enough to seat all the 
Alumni and Officers who attended, together with several distinguished 
guests. The Hon. Edward Everett, then Governor of the Commonwealth, 
presided. After Addresses from him, and several of the College officers, 
and Invited Guests, the President called up some Graduate of each of the 
former classes. Mr. Sprague, of the class of 1812, spoke as follows. 



SPEECH 



CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1836. 



Occasions like the present carry us back to the olden time. It 
has been well said, that we ought frequently to recur to first prin- 
ciples ; and it is no less useful to recur to the history of the 
men in whom great principles have been embodied and illus- 
trated. I delight to contemplate the character of our Pilgrim 
Fathers, — their high resolve, their indomitable perseverance, their 
spirit of self-sacrifice, contrasted, as they are, with that temporiz- 
ing expediency of which we see too much at the present day. 
Policy told them to bend before the blast ; expediency never 
would have landed them on these shores ; and the result of their 
labors is an eminent illustration of the truth, that " that policy 
which strikes only while the iron is hot, will, in the end, be 
exceeded by that perseverance which makes the iron hot by strik- 
ing." They labored, and we have entered into their labors. We 
possess the inheritance of their principles. Republicans in church 
government, they have given us religious freedom ; republicans 
in politics, they have given us our political institutions ; true cit- 
izens of the republic of letters, they have given us our schools and 
our University. Yes, those men, who have been sometimes called 
narrow-minded and illiberal, at a time when they had scarcely yet 



4G0 HARVARD CEXTEXXIAL CELEBRATION. 

made their bed in the wihlerness, while their log cabins were 
nightly surrounded by the howls of savage beasts and more savage 
men, while their path was beset by day, and they went forth to 
fell the forest, with the axe in one hand, and the musket in the 
other ; even then, amid privation, suffering, and want, with an 
expansive and far-seeing benevolence, they contributed, from their 
scanty and hard-earned substance, to erect here an altar to good 
letters. 

As a devoted son of the Old Colony, the blessed mother of us 
all, I would not have her passed by in silence on this occasion, 
and should say something of the deep and early interest which 
she took in our University, but that I sec before me the Pres- 
ident of the Pilgrim Society, the historian of ^Massachusetts, a lin- 
eal descendant of that John Alden who first set foot on the Kock 
of Plymouth. To him this theme appropriately belongs ; and, 
whenever the Old Colony is named, I would say to him as a fair 
lady once said to his ancestor. Her speech, unlike, I fear, that 
to which you are now listening, was short, and to the purpose ; 
but needs some preface m order to be fully understood. 

Miles Standish Avas tne military hero of the Puritan Pilgrims. 
The historian describes him as a man of small stature, but of great 
spirit. Being unmarried, he found, as Adam did before him, that, 
in a new world at least, " it is not good for man to be alone," and, 
therefore, formed the abstract resolution to take to himself a wife. 
He had cast his eyes on a fair damsel by the name of Priscilla 
^Mullins ; but such M'ere his high engagements, that he thought 
he could not devote his personal attention to what seemed to him 
so subordinate a matter as matrimony, and he therefore deputed 
his younger friend, the aforesaid John Alden, to make the propo- 
sal, and settle the preliminaries. He undertook the commission, 
and, in all good faith, proposed and recommended his friend. But 
the lady, it seems, had an eye of her own, which was better 
filled with the comely form before her, than even by the glare of 
the military hero, and her only response was, " Alden, why don't 
thee speak for thyself?" Upon this hint he spake; and Avith 
what effect, the Alden Bradfords and Ih'adford Aldens of the 
present day arc living witnesses. 

The name of Priscilla Mullins carries us buck to our Pilgrim 
Mothers, whose exalted and enduring virtues have been less 
emblazoned than they deserve, and " without whom," it has been 



HARVARD CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION. 461 

well asked, " what better should we have been for our Pilgrim 
Fathers ? " Having toasted our Alma Mater so much in partic- 
ular, and paid some respect to our mothers in general, it would be 
high treason to pass in silence by the daughters, the fair pilgrims 
of the present generation ; especially, since to them we are 
indebted for the adorning of this pavilion, and we of the Com- 
mittee had the misfortune to find it impossible to comply with the 
request to arrange for their presence at these festivities. But 
upon a theme on which it is so dangerous to indulge, I will 
trust myself only to offer what so appropriately belongs to the sex, 
— a sentiment : 

"The Ladies — We will say of tliem what; Cicero says of Letters: — 
♦ Adolescentiam alunt, senectufena oblectant, secundas res ornant, adversis 
solatium prajbent, delectant domi, pernoctant nobiscum.' " 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 



RESISTANCE TO LAW. CONSCIENCE. 



The Fugitive Slave Law, passed in September, 1850, was received, in 
Massachusetts, with almost universal regret and disapprobation. With 
not a few, it produced great excitement and exasperation. Some openly 
avowed a determination to resist it by violence, declaring that it was a 
matter of Conscience not to permit it to be executed. In the following 
February, a negro, by the name of Shadrach, was arrested in Boston, as a 
Fugitive Slave, and carried into the United States' Court Rooms for 
examination before a Commissioner, A mob broke into the room, took 
him by force from the Officers of the Law, and effected a rescue. At the 
opening of the next regular term of the District Court, in March, Judge 
Sprague delivered the following Charge to the Grand Jury. 



30 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY, 



MAECH, 1851. 



Gentlemen of the Geand Jury : 

The office you now hold demonstrates that the Constitution 
has established, not a mere confederacy of States, but a govern- 
ment acting directly upon individuals, with a Legislature to enact 
laws, a Judiciary to expound them, and an Executive to enforce 
them. Under this government, the people of the United States 
have enjoyed a greater degree of liberty, prosperity, and happi- 
ness, than have been enjoyed by any other people in the history 
of the world. To preserve this government, it is necessary that 
its laws should be faithfully executed, and you are now called 
upon, under the highest sanction, to aid in this indispensable 
work. 

I think it proper at this time to call your attention particularly 
to that part of the criminal code, which prohibits and punishes 
forcible resistance to the laws. Government is so great a blessing, 
that the highest crime which can be committed, is treason. This 
is defined by the Constitution itself in the following words : 
** Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying 
war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them 
aid and comfort." "What amounts to levying war ? This ques- 
tion arose soon after the adoption of the Constitution, in the 
several trials of Mitchell, Vigol, and Fries, for being engaged in 
the Pennsylvania Insurrection, against the law imposing a duty 



468 CHAEGE TO THE GRAND JUKY. 

upon distilled spirits, imder the administration of Washington, 
and subsequently, in the trial of Aaron Burr, m the year 1807, 
and in the case of the United States vs. Hoxie, in the year 1808. 
These ■were all tiials in the Circuit Court. 

The only case -which has come before the Supreme Court, M-as 
that of ex parte Bollman, et al., 4 Cranch, 125. In this case it 
was decided that " if a body of men be actually assembled for the 
purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose," this is levy- 
ing war. What is a treasonable purpose ? If the object be 
entirely to overthrow the government, at any one place, by force, 
as at New Orleans, which is the case mentioned by the Supreme 
Court, that is a treasonable purpose. But a conspiracy to do this, 
and actually enlisting men who never assemble, is not sufficient to 
constitute the crime of treason. There must be an actual assem- 
blage of men for the purpose of carrying the conspiracy into 
effect by force. So also, it is a treasonable purpose, if the object 
be to prevent, by force, the execution of any one law of the United 
States, in all cases — for it is entirely to overthrow the govern- 
ment as to one of its laws. And if there be an actual assemblage 
of men, for the. purpose of carrying such an intention into effect, 
that is, of acting together, and preventing, by force, the execution 
of the law generally — in all cases it Avill constitute a levyingof 
war. 

But the sudden outbreak of a mob, or the assembling of men 
in order by force to defeat the execution of the law, in a particu- 
lar instance, and then to disperse, without the intention to continue 
together, or to re-assemble for the purpose of defeating the law 
generally, in all cases, is not levying war. If war be actually 
levied, persons may be guilty, although not present with the force 
actually assembled. " All those who perform any pai't, however 
minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are 
actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as 
traitors." 

There are minor offences created and defined by Acts of Con- 
gress alone. By Statute of the 30th of April, 1790, chapter 9, 
section 22, it is enacted, " That, if any person or persons shall 
knowingly and wilfully obstruct, ucsist, or ojipose any officer of 
the T nited States, in serving or attempting to serve or execute 
any mesne process, or warrant, or any rule or order, of any of the 
Courts of the United States, or any other legal or juchcial Mrit or 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 469 

process wliatsoever, or shall assault, beat or wound any officer or 
other person, duly authorized in serving or executing any writ, 
rule, order, process, or warrant aforesaid, every person so know- 
ingly and wilfully offending in the premises, shall, on conviction 
thereof," be punished by fine and imprisonment. 

Thus you perceive, that, for more than sixty years, indeed, from 
the foundation of the government, it has been a criminal offence 
to resist, or oppose, or obstruct the Marshal in the execution of a 
warrant or other legal process ; and so plain is the utility and 
necessity of this provision, that, during all that time, no voice has 
feeen raised against it. So far from impairing the energy with 
which the laws are to be executed, the people, by their legislation, 
have added new sanctions. Thus, by Statute of March 2d, 183 1^ 
chapter 99, section 2, it is enacted, " That, if any person or per- 
sons shall corruptly, or by threats or force, endeavor to influence, 
intimidate, or impede any juror, witness, or officer, in any court 
of the United States, in the discharge of his duty, or shall cor- 
ruptly, or by threats or force, obstruct or impede, or endeavor to 
obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice therein, 
every person or persons so offending, shall be liable to prosecution 
therefor, by indictment." 

This salutary enactment to secure the free course of law has 
been in force for nearly twenty years without objection. But we 
have recently heard that not only should the Courts be impeded 
in administering the law, but that the Marshal should be obstruc- 
ted and even resisted by force in the execution of legal process, 
because of a recent statute providing for the arrest and delivej-ing 
up of fugitives from labor. It is to be observed that this statute 
subjects no person to arrest who was not before liable to be seized 
and carried out of the State ; for, ever since the adoption of the 
Constitution, these same persons have been liable to be taken and 
carried away by those from whose service they had escaped. For 
a pre-existing right created by the Constitution and affirmed by 
the Supreme Court of the United States, Congress has provided a 
new remedy by legal process to be executed by a public officer, 
and has added penal sanctions more effectually to ensure the exe- 
cution of the law. 

If it have not all the safeguards we could wish, so neither had 
the statute of 1793, passed by the fathers of the Constitution, with 



470 CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 

the approbation of Washington, and sustained by the people for 
more than half a century. 

The Constitution commands that fugitives from labor shall be 
delivered up. The Supreme Court have decided that it belongs 
to Congress to provide the means. Congress have enacted this 
law. It is imperative, and will be enforced. Let no man mis- 
take the mildness and forbearance with which the criminal code is 
habitually administered, for weakness or timidity. Resistance 
must make it sternly inflexible. 

Discussion is free. Men of all classes and of every shade of 
opinion may, by argument or even declamation addressed to the 
reason or the passions, endeavor to impress new views upon 
the public mind. But if, in their opposition to the expressed will 
of society, they pass from words to deeds, and embody mischievous 
doctrines into criminal acts of resistance to law, whoever they may 
be, and whatever may be their position or their ultimate piu-poses, 
they must sooner or later find that the law is irresistible and over- 
whelming. The people have been so long accustomed to absolute 
repose and security under the quiet administration of law, that 
they are not easily brought to believe that it can be obstructed, 
much less to contemplate the consequences of its overthrow. But 
let them be startled by acts of violence and systematic resistance, 
let it be brought home to them as a practical question, whether 
they will live under law, administered by responsible public 
agents, or under the dominion of a mob, impelled by passion, 
guided by no rule, and subject to no restraint, and they will rush 
to the support of the constituted authorities, and indignantly 
repress the spirit of anarchy. 

The statute of 1850, chapter GO, after providing that the claimant 
of a fugitive from la]:)or may have a warrant for his arrest, or seize 
him without process, proceeds, in the seventh section, to enact "That 
any person, Avho shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder or 
prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or per- 
sons lawfully assisting him, her or them, from arresting such fugi- 
tive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, 
or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or 
labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attor- 
ney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, 
when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given imd 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 471 

declared ; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service 
or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such 
claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally 
authorized as aforesaid ; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so 
as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or 
knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service 
or labor as aforesaid, shall for either of said offences be subject to " 
fine and imprisonment. 

I have thus, as I proposed, called your attention to certain acts 
of Congress and provisions of the Constitution. They are the law 
of the land, and it is our most solemn duty faithfully to execute 
them. In the words of the oath which you have just taken, you 
are to do this " without fear, or favor, affection, or hope of reward," 
presenting " things truly as they come to your knowledge, accord- 
ing to the best of your understanding." 

Here I might close ; but, as great efforts have been made to con- 
vince the public that the recent law cannot be enforced with a 
good conscience, but may be conscientiously resisted ; and an 
impression may have been made on some of your number, thus 
presenting an obstacle to the discharge of a plain legal duty, I 
deem it proper to advert briefly to the moral aspects of the subject. 

In this part of the country, the convictions of our understanding, 
our moral sentiments, and our religious opinions, are adverse to 
the institution of slavery. Hence some are ready to conclude, in 
the first place, that the provision of the Constitution for delivering 
up fugitive slaves must be morally wrong ; and, in the next place, 
that laws made to carry it into effect are to be disobeyed and 
resisted. 

Neither of these propositions legitimately follow from the prem- 
ises. 

As to the first. The States, without the Constitution, would 
be to each other foreign nations. The first duty of every nation 
is the preservation and protection of its own citizens. It is for 
this, primarily, that political societies are formed and their 
restraints submitted to. If, then, any nation finds that hospitality 
to foreign fugitives is inconsistent with its own peace and safety, 
it has a right to refuse such hospitality, and to say, to all such for- 
eigners. We cannot receive you amongst us, and if you come, we 
must deliver you up to the dominion of your own government ; 
and it may rightfully make a compact with such government for 



472 CHARGE TO THE GRAXD JURY. 

such delivery. "Whether the peace and safety of the nation do in 
fact recjuire or authorize such compact, it is for the nation itself to 
decide, and its decision is to be submitted to and its engagements 
fiiith fully performed. 

Those, therefore, who have the strongest convictions of the 
immorality of the institution of slavery are not thereby authorized 
to conclude that the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves is 
morally wrong, or that our fathers in INIassachusetts did not act 
wisely, justly, humanely, in acceding to the compacts of the Con- 
stitution. 

But, secondly, even those who go to the extreme of condemning 
the Constitution and the laws made under it, as unjust and 
immoral, cannot, even upon such an assumption, justify resistance. 
In their views, such laws are inconsistent with the justice and 
benevolence, and against the will, of the Supreme Law-giver, and 
they emphatically ask. Which shall we obey, the law of man, or the 
will of God ? I answer. Obey both. The incompatibility which 
the question assumes does not exist. Unjust and oppressive laws 
may indeed be passed by human governments. But if Infinite and 
and Inscrutable Wisdom permits political society having the power 
of human legislation to establish such laws, may not the same 
Infinite and Inscrutable AVisdom permit and require the individual, 
who has no such power, to obey them ? 

Can you say that it is his will that we shall rise up in forcible 
resistance, overthrow the power of the Government, and, instead 
of the peace and security of organized society, introduce the 
dominion of anarchy and violence ? Are such the appointed 
means for their abrogation ? Unjust laws have always existed. 
Until a recent period, poor and honest debtors were even here 
oppressively imprisoned ; and, in England, stealing, to the value of 
more than a shilling, was punishable with death, and their code 
numbered more than one hundred and fifty capital offences. The 
wise and the good saw that these laws were cruel and unnecessary. 
They did not rush to arms, or counsel disobedience. But, by the 
diffusion of knowledge, by reason and persuasion, they changed the 
public mind, and the laws were peaceably ameliorated. The 
fruits of justice and benevolence, like the fruits of the natural 
world, are to be matured by mild and genial infiucnccs. The 
punishment of death is still infiictcd by our laws. 

Many good men firmly believe that society has no right to tixke 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 473 

the life of one of its members. With them capital punishment is 
the highest injustice and the greatest wrong that can be inflicted. 
But they do not counsel resistance, to convulse society and over- 
throw the government, but quietly and conscientiously submit to 
the peaceful execution of the laws. 

But we are told by some, that, the law being morally wrong, 
conscience tells them to resist it. Conscience, indeed, is to be 
reverenced and obeyed, but still we must remember that it is fal- 
lible, especially where the rights of others are concerned, and may 
lead us to do great injustice. Some have an impression that it is 
the divinity within them, an unerring and infallible guide. Hence 
they cannot believe or conceive that opposition to their views can 
be conscientious. It is this lurking fallacy, this tacit assumption of 
personal infallibility, that makes them intolerant towards others, 
and inaccessible to argument. 

I speak not of those who believe that they have special inspira- 
tion from above, that a miracle has been wrought for their guid- 
ance. Such are beyond the scope of human reason, and fit sub- 
jects either of consecration or a mad-house, according as their 
belief is founded on reality or delusion. But, with those who are 
under the dominion of the established laws of the moral and intel- 
lectual world, conscience is fallible. The annals of the world 
abound with enormities committed by a narrow and darkened con- 
science. A man may incur great moral guilt, not indeed by fol- 
lowing his conscience, but by neglecting the means of rectifying 
and enlightening it. Its dictates are varied, not only according to 
moral constitution, but the intellectual power and extent of infor- 
mation of the individual. The purer the motive the more exten- 
sive the knowledge, and the greater the mental ability, the more 
enlightened will be the conscience, and the more correct its decis- 
ions. 

The moral faculty or moral judgment being thus fallible, there 
may be a conflict of consciences. Let me present an illustration. 
A ship arrives with sick passengers. One class of men insist 
that the disease is contagious, and that they shall not be permitted 
to land and spread a general pestilence. Another class insist that 
it is not contagious, and that it would be cruelty to compel them 
to remain on ship-board, aggravating their sufferings and their 
danger. With both it is is a question of humanity — of con- 
science. Again, certain strangers seek an asylum amongst 



474 CHAKGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 

us. One class of our citizens see in them only fugitives from 
oppression, whom we can easily and securely receive and protect. 
Another class believe that they bring with them, not physical but 
moral contagion, that their presence will endanger the public peace 
and individual safety, that it may embroil us with other States, 
and bring upon us the sufferings and horrors of external and inter- 
nal war and convulsions. The one class urge the obligations of 
hosi:)itality and benevolence, the other the obligations of self-pres- 
ervation and the sacred duty of preserving those whom nature 
and society have committed to their protection. 

Both are equally sincere, conscientious, and resolute. Which 
shall yield ? Is there no appeal but to force ? I answer, yes. 
And the arbiter must be society, — organized society, — pronounc- 
ing its decision through its regularly constituted agents. This is 
the moral judgment, the embodied conscience, of the political com- 
munity. To this not only is each individual bound to submit, but 
it is anew and controlling element in forming his own moral judg- 
ment. An act which before may have been innocent is now 
criminal, and its commission not only opposed to the will, but sub- 
versive of the order, peace, existence of the political society. 

Submission is a moral duty. This is as certain as that the 
Creator made man a social being, and designed that he should Hve, 
not in perpetual anarchy, but in peace and security ; for human 
government is the only means which Infinite Goodness has pro- 
vided, for preserving us from unceasing conflict and violence. To 
submit to the law of the land is, then, to obey the will of God. 

It may be asked, is resistance never justifiable ? Is there no 
exception ? I answer, yes ! When oppression present and pros- 
pective is so great as to justifj' a resort to the ultimate right of rev- 
olution. But this is not to be done from impulse or feeling, but 
from the calm and careful consideration of the dangers and diffi- 
culties of the proposed remedy. ^ A wise man will reflect that 
evils, great evils, must exist under every human government ; that 
a perfect fabric cannot be made of imperfect materials, and that, 
whatever he may attempt, he must still work by and with fallible 
man, with all his blindness, M'cakncss and passion. 

If, after a deliberate contemplation of the convulsions and mise- 
ries attending the overthrow of the existing government, and the 
hazards and uncertainties of establishing a better on its ruins, he 
firmly believes the permanent happiness of the community requires 



CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. 475 

the attempt, he may conscientiously make it. Under a despotism 
such a case may occur not unfrequently, but we can hardly sup- 
pose it to exist in a republic, where the laws are made by the peo- 
ple themselves, through agents fi-eely appointed for short periods 
by frequent elections. 

In our own country, if there be any who, contemplating the 
infirmities of our nature, and the history of the race, looking at 
what has been accomplished in all ages that have passed, and what 
is now the condition of mankind under all other political institutions, 
and then looking at our own government, its history and its hopes, 
its past performance and future promise, and then deshe its destruc- 
tion in the vain and desperate hope of establishing a better in its 
stead, they must be inaccessible to reason or remonstrance, and of 
that unfortunate class in whose minds judgment is dethroned, and 
monomania holds usurped dominion. 



HEMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES' 

CIRCUIT COURT, ON THE DEATH 

OF MR. WEBSTER. 



DEATH OF MR. WEBSTER. 



Mr. Webster died at Marshfield, in November, 1852. The Circuit 
Court of the United States was then sitting at Boston, Judges Curtis and 
Sprague being upon the bench. At a meeting of the Members of the 
Bar, Resolutions appropriate to the occasion were passed, and were subse- 
quently presented to the Court by the District Attorney, George Lunt, 
Esq., accompanied by an Address from him, and also by Addresses from 
Charles Gr. Loring, Rufus Choate, and Greorge T. Curtis, Esq. In 
response to which, Judge Sprague spoke as follows. 



REMARKS 



CN THE DEATH OF IMR. WEBSTER, IX THE UNITED STATES 
CIRCUIT COURT, IN NOVEMBER, 1852. 



The event we deplore is solemn, is appalling, not only as a 
calamity, and for the void whicli it creates, but still more, as bring- 
ing with it an overwhelming sense of the nothingness of human 
power. Others may have excelled Mr. Webster in some intellect- 
ual endowment, but, in the combination of the statesman, the ora- 
tor, the diplomatist, the jurist, and the advocate, the present age 
has not produced his equal, and no age his superior. 

It was my lot to be associated with him in both branches of the 
national Legislature, and as a member of the same political party, 
of the same profession, and from the same .section of the country. 
It is now nearly twenty-seven years since I entered the House of 
Representatives, of which he was then a member. The preemi- 
nence asserted for him by his friends, was not then conceded by 
his opponents. But it was soon observable that, whenever a 
debate arose in which Mr. Webster took an earnest part, even 
those who were most strenuous in denying his general superior- 
ity, were constrained to admit that, upon that occasion, he had 
excelled all others. These occasions at length became so multi- 
plied, with so many opponents, and upon such a variety of top- 
ics, that, in spite of sectional jealousy, or party prejudice and intol- 
erance, and of personal partialities and local pride, the admission 
of his superiority was forced upon unwilling minds, and from 

31 



48f? ])EAT:[ of MR, WEBSTER. 

reluctant lips, and he stood confessed by all, unequalled in intel- 
lectual power. In the most violent times, under the most exasper- 
ating attacks, personal and political, he never transcended the lim- 
its of good taste or parliamentary decorum, never violated the 
courtesy and dignity of senatorial debate. 

Should any be disposed to say of him as "svas said of Burke — 

" Born for the universe, he narrowed bis mind, 
And to party gave up what was meant fur mankind," 

it should be answered also, that what he gave to party he gave to 
mankind, for he established principles, and elucidated truths, of 
universal application and eternal duration. 

No man can read his speeches without clearer views upon great 
political problems, without a more profound comprehension of the 
true foundation upon which civil society should be erected, and 
the just rules by which its affairs should be conducted. 

Xo candid mind can rise from the perusal of his Avorks, with- 
out a more just and elevated appreciation of our own Constitution 
and Government, a warmer and more exalted patriotism, without 
being a truer and firmer friend of real republicanism, of justice, of 
law, of order, of universal, regulated liberty. 

The present occasion does not permit me to verify these gen- 
eral remarks, by specific and detailed references, nor has the time 
arrived when his later efforts can be dispassionately considered. 

But there is one speech made so long since as to be now mat- 
ter of history, and involving no topic of present excitement, of 
which I have been esjjecially requested to speak, because it is the 
most celebrated, and of the then Senators from New England, I 
am, with one exception, the only survivor ; and it is proper to 
speak of it here, and now, because a great vital question of Constitu- 
tional law was by that speech settled as completely and irrevoca- 
bly as it could have been by the greatest minds in the highest judi- 
cial tribunals. 

Mr, Foot's resolution involved merely the question of limiting 
or extending the survey of the public lands. Upon this, ]Mr. Ben- 
ton and ]\lr. llayne addressed the Senate, condemning the policy 
of the Eastern States, as illiberal towards the "West. Mr. Web- 
ster replied in vindication of New England and the policy of the 
government. It was then that General Ilayne made the assault 
which that speech repelled. 



DEATH OF MR. WEBSTER. 48-3 

It has been asked if it be possible that that reply was made 
without previous preparation. There could have been no special 
preparation before the speech began to which it was an answer. 
When General Hayne closed, Mr. Webster followed, with the 
interval only of the usual adjournment of one night. 

His reply was made to repel an attack, sudden, unexpected, 
and almost unexampled, an attack upon Mr. Webster personally, 
upon Massachusetts and New England, and upon the Constitution. 

There can be little doubt that this attack was the result of pre- 
meditation, concert, and arrangement. His assailant selected his 
own time, and that too, peculiarly inconvenient to Mr. Webster, 
for, at that moment, the Supreme Court were proceeding in the 
hearing of a cause of great importance, in which he was leading 
counsel. For this reason, he requested, through a friend, a post- 
ponement of the debate. General Hayne objected, and the 
request was refused. The assailant, too, selected his own ground, 
and made his choice of topics, without reference to the resolution 
before the Senate, or the legitimate subject of debate. The time, 
the matter, and the manner indicate that the attack was made with 
the design to crush a formidable political opj^onent. To this end, 
personal history, the annals of New England and of the federal 
party, were ransacked for materials. It was attempted to make 
him responsible, not only for what was his own, but for the opin- 
ions and conduct of others. All the errors and delinquencies, 
real or supposed, of Massachusetts and the Eastern States, and of 
the federal party, during the war of 1812, and throughout their 
history, were to be accumulated on him. It was supposed that, 
as a representative, he would be driven to attempt to defend what 
was indefensible, and to uphold what could not be sustained, and, 
as a federalist, to oppose the popular resolutions of ninety-eight. 

General Hayne heralded his speech with a declaration of war, 
with taunts and threats, vaunting anticipated triumph, as if to par- 
alyze by intimidation ; saying that he had something rankling in 
his breast, and that he would carry the war into Africa, until he 
had obtained indemnity for the past, and security for the future. 

Mr. Webster evidently felt the magnitude of the occasion, and 
a consciousness that he was more than equal to it. On no other 
occasion, although I have heard him hundreds of times, have I 
seen him so thoroughly aroused. Yet, when he commenced, and 
throughout the whole, he M-as perfectly self-possessed and self- 



48-1: DEATH OF MB.. WEBSTER. 

controlled. Never was his bearing more lofty, his person more 
majestic, his manner more appropriate and impressive. 

At first, a few of his opponents made some show of indiffer- 
ence. But the power of the orator soon swept away all affecta- 
tion, and a solemn, deep, absorbing interest was manifested by all, 
and continued even through his profound discussion of Constitu- 
tional law. 

When he closed, the impression upon all was too deep for 
utterance, and, to this day, no one who was present has spoken of 
that speech, but as a matchless achievement, and a complete tri- 
umph. When he sat down. General Hayne arose, and endeav- 
ored to re-state and reinforce his argument. This instantly called 
forth from INIr. Webster that final condensed reply which has the 
force of a moral demonstration. 

The value of that speech cannot be measured, without a just 
appreciation of our Constitution, and of Republican Government. 
Nullification had become formidable. It had been practically 
adopted in high places, and was sustained by several States, and 
some of the ablest minds of the South, and was daily gaining 
strength, as the offspring of the resolutions of ninety-eight. By 
this single effort, that deadly heresy was prostrated and crushed 
forever. 

No speech, ancient or modern, has, within the same time, con- 
vinced so manv minds, and produced so great and salutary results. 
It was not addressed merely to the enlightened and reflecting 
audience around him, but to this great reading nation, and to the 
civilized world. If the doctrines of General llayne had pievailed, 
this Union would have been shattered into fragments ; but Mr. 
Webster and his doctrines have triumphed, and our Union 
remains, in all its magnificence and beneficence. 

When Mr. Webster first entered the State Department, our 
Foreign affairs, particularly, with Great ]5ritain, were complicated 
and critical in the extreme. Adverse military forces had been 
gathering upon our Northeastern Boundary. In relation to the 
affair of the Caroline, an unsound doctrine of international law 
had been put forth on our part, which, if it had been carried out 
bv the threatened punishment of the soldier McLeod, would 
immediately have brought a hostile fieet upon our coast The 
matter of the Creole, too, was a further disturbing cause. Mr. 
AVebster extricated the (Government from the false position in 



DEATH OF MR. WEBSTER. 485 

which it had been placed by his predecessor, by frankly conced- 
ing what Ave could not justly maintain, and planting himself only 
upon the right. 

His State papers, during the administration of Harrison and 
Tyler, are unsurpassed in power, truth and propriety. His diplo- 
macy was consummate. It attained complete success, and enti- 
tled him to the gratitude of his country and the world. If his 
principles and practice should be followed by all nations, war 
would cease, and the reign of peace be universal. 

M.eii clistinguished in political life have often attempted in vain 
to command success at the bar, while great lawyers have signally 
failed in a parliamentary career. Distinct powers are required for 
each. For the one, the poAver of resolving a question into its ele- 
ments ; and for the other, the power of combination, of dealing 
with masses, and of holding great subjects in a comprehensiA'e 
grasp. Mr. Webster possessed both preeminently. 

As a laAvyer, he, for nearly thirty years, stood at the head of the 
bar of the United States, Avithout a rival ; Avhile at the same time 
he maintained his preeminence as a statesman and an orator, in the 
halls of Congress, or at the head of a Cabinet, In consultation, 
no man Avas more Aveighty ; in trials, at the bar, no man was his 
equal. He possessed CA-ery requisite for success in the highest 
degree, — eloquent, sagacious, fearless, circumspect, ready, learned 
and profound. No other lawyer has so ably expounded the con- 
stitution, and no one has done so much to maintain it upon its true 
foundation, and in its just proportions. Superior as he must have 
felt himself to be, to those Avhom he generally addiessed, that 
superiority Avas noA^er asserted in his manner towartls the bench, 
which Avas uniformly respectful and deferential. He Avished the 
laAV to be revered, and he kncAV that reverence for the laAv could 
not be maintained Avithout respect for the tribunals by Avhich it is 
administered. Faithful to his clients, he Avas also true to the 
court, and never, for temporary success, exerted his gi-eat poAvers 
to subvert fundamental principles, or confound the rules of right. 
He never used his gigantic strength to remove the landmarks of 
the laAV. He dealt Avith facts as an advocate, but Avith the laAV as a 
jurist. It was Avith him a science upon Avhich depended public 
and private right, social order, the peace, the existence of civiKzed 
society. I leaA'e to the learned Justice of the Supreme Court, 
Avho has been so recently and intimately associated Avith him at 



486 DEATH OF MR. WEBSTER. 

the bar, to present a more complete delineation of liis forensic 
character. 

Extraordinary as were the natural gifts of the great departed, 
he did not trust to them alone. 

He was laborious, but not with incessant moil. He gave him- ' 
self frequent intervals of relaxation and repose ; but when his 
mind was brought into earnest exercise, it worked with an inten- 
sity and effect that could not be exceeded. One part of his 
intellectual training particularly rcccommends its«lf to the young 
men of his own profession. When any question was present^pto 
his mind, he was not content to examine it only to see what could 
be said on his own side, or to maintain a thesis, but he inves- 
tigated the subject on all sides, sounded its depths, explored its 
foundations,' and, having found the truth, laid it up as a treasure to 
be kept forever. It was thus that he amassed that amazing intel- 
lectual Avealth, upon which he could draw at any time as an 
exhaustless mine. He had a profound respect and reverence for 
the Christian religion and its ordinances. Whenever he spoke of 
them, it was in deep tones of solemnity and awe. No one who 
knew him Avould presume to speak of them hghtly or thought- 
lessly in his presence. 

I had hoped that, when the time should have arrived for his 
withdrawal from the active scenes of political life, he would, in 
his rural retreat, have devoted his last years to the investigation 
and contemplation of the momentous subject of revelation and a 
future life, and that he would have given to the world, the fruits 
of the inquiries and reflections of his great mind. Such a work 
would liave been of transcendent value, and a graceful close, and 
the crowning glory of the labors of his life. But Infinite Wisdom 
and Infinite Goodness have ordered it otherwise, and Ave have only 
to bow in humble submission to the dispensation. 



